Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind colleagues that a deferred Division will take place today. Members should be aware that the timings have reverted to being between 11.30 am and 2 pm, though deferred Divisions will continue to take place in the Members’ Library. Members will cast their votes by placing a completed Division slip in one of the ballot boxes provided. If a Member has a proxy vote in operation, they must not vote in person in the deferred Division. The nominated proxy should vote on their behalf. I remind colleagues of the importance of social distancing during the deferred Division and ask them to pick up a Division slip from the Vote Office and fill it in before they reach the Library, if possible. The result will be announced in the Chamber at a convenient moment after the Division is over.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Covid-19: Economic Effect

Rebecca Long-Bailey: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the economic effect of the covid-19 outbreak on (a) women, (b) disabled people and (c) Black, Asian and minority ethnic people.

Zarah Sultana: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the economic effect of the covid-19 outbreak on (a) women, (b) disabled people and (c) Black, Asian and minority ethnic people.

Kemi Badenoch: The pandemic has affected all communities in our country. This Government have done their utmost to protect lives and livelihoods. We have targeted economic support at those who need it most. For example, rolling out unprecedented levels of economic support worth over £200 billion has provided a much needed lifeline for  those working in shut-down sectors such as retail and hospitality, the workforces in which are disproportionately young, female and from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background. We have taken action to ensure that disabled people have access to disability benefits, financial support and employment support, such as the Work and Health programme, and we have extended the self-employment income support scheme, in which some ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Analysis of the labour force survey by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the shut-down sectors worst affected by the pandemic have a higher than average proportion of workers who are women, who are disabled and who are from BAME backgrounds. In Salford, where this economic picture is stark, the number of people claiming universal credit has more than doubled since January. Will the Minister, first, commit to demanding that the Chancellor strengthens support to those struggling, as advised by the Social Security Advisory Committee, such as protecting the £20 universal credit uplift and extending it to people on legacy benefits? Secondly, will she request bespoke financial support packages for the worst hit sectors?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Lady will be aware that the Chancellor will be announcing his spending review this afternoon, and I think she will find that many of the questions she is asking will be answered at that point. With respect to the sectors that have been shut down, as I said in my first answer, we recognise that those people who are on low incomes have been disproportionately affected, and those groups are the ones who have most benefited from the interventions that the Treasury has put in place.

Zarah Sultana: Nearly one in seven people in Coventry are now on universal credit. That is a 97% increase since March. Low earnings, higher rates of poverty and greater need mean that women, BAME communities and disabled people rely more on UC and the social security system. Fixing it, from scrapping the two-child limit and benefit cap to an uplift in payments, is a question of gender, racial and disability justice. What has the Minister done to push for these measures in today’s spending review, including keeping the £20 UC uplift from April 2021 and extending it to jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance?

Kemi Badenoch: I am afraid that, as I said in my earlier answer, questions about the spending review need to be asked to during the spending review, which will take place later this afternoon.

Caroline Nokes: We know that we went into the pandemic with female employment at a record level and with the disability employment gap shrinking. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the work that she is undertaking with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that women, disabled people and BAME people are not disadvantaged when we come out of the pandemic?

Kemi Badenoch: As we discussed at the Women and Equalities Committee a few weeks ago, this is something that the Government Equalities Office is very much alive to. I am working with equalities Ministers across  various Departments to see how the interventions that we are making are not going to impact on those groups who are most vulnerable, and I will continue to update her on that work.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome Charlotte Nichols to her first outing at the Dispatch Box.

Charlotte Nichols: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
There are over 600,000 people in work who are clinically extremely vulnerable. Current shielding guidance states that if they cannot work from home, they should not go to their usual place of work, but this does not entitle them to be furloughed. This means that many disabled people have had to ask their employer to put them on furlough in order to receive financial support. Where employers have refused to do so, an estimated 22% of disabled employees have had to choose between their lives and their livelihoods. Does the Minister think that this is fair?

Kemi Badenoch: As the hon. Lady will know, the pandemic has affected many different groups in very bad ways, and we have done everything we can to support them. Specifically on disabled people, we have done quite a lot in looking at the benefits that they have and providing support in many other ways, including employment support. These are the ways that we are protecting those people who are being disproportionately impacted. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who is also in the House today, is going to be answering more questions on our disabled strategy, and perhaps he will be able to provide more information specifically from a Department for Work and Pensions perspective.

Workplace Discrimination: Pregnant Women and New Mothers

Maria Miller: With reference to the Government-commissioned research on pregnancy and maternity-related discrimination and disadvantage, published in 2015, what progress the Government have made in tackling unlawful discrimination against pregnant women and new mothers in the workplace.

Paul Scully: Since the publication of research on pregnancy and maternity discrimination, the Government have worked with ACAS and published updated guidance to ensure that women and employers understand their rights and obligations, consulted on measures to extend redundancy protections and committed to introduce these in an employment Bill.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are heading to Basingstoke—but maybe not yet, as we do not have Maria Miller, so I call Kerry McCarthy.

Victims of Domestic Abuse: Free Travel

Kerry McCarthy: What recent assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of rail to refuge schemes in providing free travel to victims of domestic abuse.

Rachel Maclean: The rail to refuge scheme, as of 15 November 2020, has assisted 626 adults and 210 children in crisis.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Minister for her response. She will know that domestic abuse services have, sadly, seen a real surge in demand during the lockdown. Rail to refuge schemes, including the GWR scheme that serves my constituency, have helped more than 800 people to flee domestic abuse through the use of a free rail ticket. Can the Minister commit to funding these schemes in the future, because they are really important to people who need to get away?

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Lady very much for her support for this scheme. She will know that over 63% of victims of domestic abuse accessing the support have stated that they would not have been able to access a journey at all if the scheme had not been in place. I am pleased that this vital scheme is extended until next March, and we keep all these schemes under review all the time.

Workplace Discrimination: Pregnant Women and New Mothers

Lindsay Hoyle: We are now going back to Basingstoke, to Maria Miller with her supplementary question.

Maria Miller: In Germany, women who are pregnant or on maternity leave cannot be made redundant, to avoid any hidden discrimination. With one in four women who are pregnant during the pandemic experiencing discrimination here at home, is it not time for the UK to look carefully at adopting a similar approach to that taken in Germany?

Paul Scully: I thank my right hon. Friend for pushing her private Member’s Bill and for her concern in this area. I was pleased to meet her. Germany has a far more prescriptive labour market. We support the intention behind her Bill but, having undertaken a full consultation in 2019, we have decided on a different approach, working with the grain of our current regime and extending the existing protection afforded to a new mother on maternity leave into pregnancy and for a six-month return to work period. We will introduce these changes as soon as parliamentary time allows. I am more than happy to continue to work with my right hon. Friend in that regard.

Social Mobility

David Evennett: What steps she is taking to promote social mobility throughout the UK.

Miriam Cates: What steps she is taking to promote social mobility throughout the UK.

Christian Wakeford: What steps she is taking to promote social mobility throughout the UK.

Holly Mumby-Croft: What steps she is taking to promote social mobility throughout the UK.

Alexander Stafford: What steps she is taking to promote social mobility throughout the UK.

Elizabeth Truss: This Government are focused on levelling up. We are transforming our skills system so that everybody has a chance to train and retrain, and we are using important new data analysis from the Equality Hub to ensure that we are addressing where real inequality lies in the UK.

David Evennett: I welcome all the work my right hon. Friend is doing to promote social mobility. However, what assessment has she made of the needs of groups such as white working class children whose challenges have not had enough attention to date?

Elizabeth Truss: I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. White British children who receive free school meals perform worse at GCSE than equivalent black and Asian children. We need to ensure that children from all backgrounds are succeeding in modern Britain, and that is going to be a major focus for the Equality Department, working with the Department for Education.

Miriam Cates: Social mobility should not mean having to leave your community to go in search of opportunity: we need to spread opportunities across our towns and villages, including those in my constituency. The digital revolution should provide an opportunity to make this more achievable, but sadly, many adults, even in my constituency, do not have the digital work skills needed to take advantage of this. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the digital skills boot camps being established across the country, alongside the fantastic work of civil society organisations such as the Good Things Foundation in Sheffield, are vital to opening up the jobs of the future to people in all communities?

Elizabeth Truss: We know that digital skills are vital in the modern economy. We also know that this is a huge opportunity for us to level up our country. We know that take-up is particularly low among girls in areas such as computing, and that is why the digital skills boot camps are vital. They are being rolled out across the country in spring 2021 to ensure that everybody has the skills they need to succeed.

Christian Wakeford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lifetime skills guarantee is a landmark achievement in opening up opportunity for all, especially in left behind communities, such as Radcliffe, in my constituency?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; too many people have been let down in the past by poor education. We want to make that right, through the lifetime skills guarantee, making sure that there is an entitlement to level 3 qualifications and access to four years of loan funding, for people to use over their life- time, so that everybody, right across the United Kingdom, has the skills they need to succeed.

Holly Mumby-Croft: My right hon. Friend will know that education is incredibly important when it comes to opportunity and social mobility. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that those who learn  differently due to dyslexia are able to receive that crucial early diagnosis and support so that they can access those opportunities equally?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend makes a very good point; everybody needs access to a world-class education that sets them up for life. I am pleased to say that in early years 25% of children with special educational needs achieved a good level of development in 2019, which compares with a figure of only 14% in 2013, but we continue to do more to make sure that children with special educational needs have access to a good education, right across the country.

Alexander Stafford: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that mothers are supported in the return to work during this recovery?

Elizabeth Truss: It is very important that working mothers and working fathers have access to the childcare they need so that they are able to get into work during the coronavirus crisis. That is why it is so important that we keep our schools and nurseries open, and that we continue to give the support of the 30 hours a week of childcare for three and four-year-olds.

Covid-19: Disabled People and Legacy Benefits

Patrick Grady: What steps she is taking to ensure the adequacy of support for disabled people on legacy benefits during the covid-19 outbreak.

Justin Tomlinson: The Government are committed to supporting disabled people affected by the covid-19 outbreak. We are ensuring that disabled people continue to have access to disability benefits and other financial support during it.

Patrick Grady: I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that nearly half of people in poverty in the UK are either themselves disabled or live in a household with someone who is. As he says, covid has exacerbated that hardship, and the inequalities disabled people face will only be exacerbated by the fact that those who are on not on universal credit will not have benefited from the uplift of £20 that was applied to UC. So has he, or anyone else in the Government, carried out an equalities impact assessment on the decision not to extend the £20 uplift to legacy benefits?

Justin Tomlinson: Those on legacy benefits will have benefited from the 1.7% uplift as part of the annual upratings. Depending on individual circumstances, they may have also benefited from the changes to the local housing allowance; the increases in discretionary housing support; the various employment support schemes; and the additional discretionary support administered via local authorities. This year alone we anticipate expenditure on disability benefits to increase by nearly 5%.

Anne McLaughlin: The reason my Scottish National party colleagues and I, and others, have repeatedly called for this £20 uplift is that covid-19 costs people with disabilities significantly  more money than it does most others, yet they have been completely ignored. Last week, a petition from the Disability Benefits Consortium calling for the £20 uplift, which had 119,000 signatures, was handed in to the Chancellor. As the Minister who represents the interests of people with disabilities, did he ask the Chancellor to do this in today’s spending review? If not, what did he ask for?

Justin Tomlinson: As I have already set out, we anticipate spending on disability benefits to increase by 4.6%; we are talking about close to £20 billion and that is targeted support for those who most need it.

Covid-19: Disabled People

Vicky Foxcroft: What steps the Government are taking to help protect disabled people from the effects of the covid-19 outbreak.

Justin Tomlinson: The Government are committed to supporting disabled people affected by the covid-19 outbreak. We are ensuring that disabled people continue to have access to employment support, disability benefits, financial support, food, medicines, accessible communications and updated guidance.

Vicky Foxcroft: Data published by Scope this week shows that the disability employment gap stands at a shocking 29.2% nationwide. Many are fearful that the gap will increase with the economic fallout of covid-19. We clearly need a long-term, multi-pronged approach to address this deeply entrenched issue, so will the Minister commit to examining Scope’s five policy asks and work with his Department for Work and Pensions colleagues to put them into practice?

Justin Tomlinson: I put on the record a tribute to the proactive and constructive work of Scope and many other organisations to support our efforts, which have resulted in record disability employment—up 1.3 million since 2010. Yes, these are unprecedented times, but we have made sure that all the schemes in our £30 billion plan for jobs have disability provision embedded. We will continue with our ambition to have 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027—nothing has changed.

Institutional Racism

Wendy Chamberlain: What steps the Government are taking to tackle institutional racism.

Kemi Badenoch: We are committed to a fairer society. In July, the Government set up the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which is reviewing inequality in the UK, focusing on areas that include education, employment, health and the criminal justice system. The commission is looking at outcomes for the whole population and is due to report at the end of the year.

Wendy Chamberlain: This year, one of the issues about which I received the most correspondence was the Black Lives Matter movement and the death of  George Floyd. A key thing that came across was that my constituents want to ensure that what we teach in schools is properly representative of the role that black Britons and other people of colour have played in our history. Today, the “Black Curriculum” report, led by Dr Jason Arday of Durham University, has concluded that the national curriculum in England
“systematically omits the contribution of Black British history”.
Will the Minister speak to the Secretary of State for Education, urge him to work with colleagues in the devolved Administrations, such as Kirsty Williams in Wales, and ensure that we have a truly reflective curriculum?

Kemi Badenoch: I have not seen the report that the hon. Lady refers to, but I will look at it with interest, decide, from an equalities perspective, whether I agree with the conclusions that have been made, and then speak to the Secretary of State for Education about it.

Covid-19: Childcare

Paul Blomfield: What steps she is taking to support women returning to work to access childcare during the covid-19 outbreak.

Paul Scully: The Government are supporting childcare provision during the pandemic by funding the free childcare entitlement for two, three and four-year-olds with £3.6 billion in 2020-21. We are giving grants and loans to businesses and ensuring that childcare providers can access the coronavirus job retention scheme, where necessary.

Paul Blomfield: The Prime Minister has urged everybody who can do so to work at home until April, and obviously many people have been doing that for the past eight months, but childcare responsibilities are still falling largely on women. As a result, recent data has shown that 67% of women with children—compared with just 16% of fathers—are likely to quit their job because they cannot balance childcare with work. The Minister talked about the action that the Government are taking, as did the Minister for Women and Equalities earlier, but it is clearly not working, so what more will the Government do to reset this imbalance?

Paul Scully: The Government have introduced 30 hours of free childcare for eligible working parents of three and four-year-olds. We have ensured that the childcare sector has been able to stay open to support parents to continue to work. We are investing £1 billion from 2021 to help to create more high-quality, wraparound and holiday childcare places, both before and after school, and we will continue to push the fact that childcare needs to be distributed equally between both parents.

Topical Questions

Mary Robinson: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Elizabeth Truss: As we recover from covid, I am determined that we ensure that everyone across Britain is treated equally and has equal opportunity. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is critical to delivering that. I am  delighted that, alongside announcing Baroness Kishwer Falkner as my preferred chair, I have appointed four new commissioners with a diverse range of opinions and backgrounds—a leading tech entrepreneur, a leading thinker, a pioneering health expert and a business leader—who are all committed to equality.

Mary Robinson: While the global focus has been on dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, other important issues also need our attention, particularly the rising rates of female genital mutilation. What measures is my right hon. Friend taking to tackle FGM internationally?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This is an issue of concern for the Government. According to the UN Population Fund, the covid-19 pandemic could disrupt efforts towards ending FGM. We cannot let that happen. That is why we are continuing with UK Aid supported programmes on FGM, which have already helped 10,000 communities.

Marsha de Cordova: Today is the international day for the elimination of violence against women. The latest Office for National Statistics figures show that 1.6 million women experienced domestic abuse last year. Since the pandemic began, domestic abuse has intensified and women have reported finding it harder to escape. Yet 10 years of sustained cuts to services have left just 4,000 beds available for women who are fleeing domestic violence. It is obvious that the funding provided so far is too little too late, so can the Minister say when the Government will adequately fund services and give women the confidence they need, so that they will be protected by this Government?

Elizabeth Truss: We are concerned about domestic abuse during the pandemic. That is why we have provided an extra £76 million to support vulnerable people, including domestic abuse victims, and we have recently made available a further £11 million to support domestic abuse services as they continue to manage the impacts of the pandemic.

Marsha de Cordova: The gender pay gap is still sitting at around 15%. At the current rate of progress, more than 8 million women working today will retire before they see equal pay. This sends a message to women that this Government are happy to turn back the clock on women’s equal pay. I am going to ask the Minister a straightforward question, yes or no: will she restart gender pay gap reporting in April next year?

Elizabeth Truss: Our focus is on making sure that we are helping women during the coronavirus crisis, through the furlough scheme, through making sure that there is flexible working and childcare support available and through making sure that we get more women into jobs. My view is that we need to address the causes of the gender pay gap, including getting more girls and women studying science, technology, engineering and maths subjects, so that they are able to earn higher amounts in their careers.

Andrew Jones: The impact of the pandemic on unemployment is being felt in every constituency. It is more important  than ever to ensure that those living with disabilities are treated equally in the recruitment process, so what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that protections that support equality throughout the recruitment process stay prominent as we focus now on recovery?

Justin Tomlinson: I thank my hon. Friend who is a real champion for disability employment opportunities in his constituency. As part of our £30 billion plan for jobs, disability provision is embedded throughout our schemes, including in kick-start, the job entry targeted support scheme, sector-based academies, apprenticeships, the health and work programme, intensive personalised employment support and access to work. We remind employers that, under the Equality Act 2010, they must focus on ability, not health or disability.

Virendra Sharma: I will be hosting a national group of experts on decolonising the British curriculum in January 2021. Will the Secretary of State attend that event to listen to the expert testimonies from the academics regarding this important issue?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I said in a recent debate on this topic, we do not accept the premise that the curriculum in this country is colonised. While I am always very interested in hearing the viewpoints about how we can improve the curriculum, there are certain premises that we simply will not accept.

Pauline Latham: What recent steps has the Secretary of State taken with Cabinet colleagues to improve access to sexual and reproductive health services for young people during the covid-19 outbreak?

Kemi Badenoch: Sexual and reproductive health services have remained open during the pandemic. Services are maintaining access during this time through scaling up of online services. Guidance from the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare sets out that local pathways for urgent referral for vulnerable groups, including via young people’s outreach, should be maintained.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: The EHRC report on the hostile environment released today shows just how bad the situation has been over the years. It is clear that the EHRC does not have the capacity to launch an inquiry into every piece of legislation that has had its equality compliance questioned. Will the Minister explain what steps are being taken to ensure that future legislation is not labelled as complying with the public sector duty when it so clearly does not?

Elizabeth Truss: It is very important that we conduct equality impact assessments, but it is also important that they are kept confidential within the Government to ensure that there is not a chilling effect and we are able to have an honest debate about achieving equality across all Departments.

Andrea Leadsom: My right hon. Friend will be aware that more than half a million new babies were born during the  first lockdown. What assessment has she made for the many women who have had to struggle with juggling childcare responsibilities with going back to work during this very difficult year?

Elizabeth Truss: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her important work leading the early years healthy development review. I completely agree that we need to ensure that people are protected during the lockdown and that they are helped, as we recover from covid, to find better childcare options and better flexible working options. I am working closely with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to achieve that.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Laurence Robertson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 November.

Boris Johnson: Good morning, Mr Speaker. I hope very much that our connection works today. This is my last day of virtual meetings with ministerial colleagues and others before I come out of isolation. In addition to my virtual meetings and duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Laurence Robertson: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that in any agreement that he reaches with the European Union, British sovereignty will be protected for the whole United Kingdom and that the UK will exit the transition period on 31 December as a whole?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed; I can make that guarantee. Our position on fish has not changed. We will only be able to make progress if the EU accepts the reality that we must be able to control access to our waters. It is very important at this stage to emphasise that.

Keir Starmer: Today is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and Girls. On average, a woman is killed by a man every three days in this country. It is a shocking statistic; and, sadly, the pandemic has seen a significant increase in domestic abuse. I will join those marking this day, and I am sure that the whole House would agree that we need to do far more to end domestic violence.
The Prime Minister may remember that in August last year, he wrote the foreword to the ministerial code. It says:
“There must be no bullying…no harassment; no leaking… No misuse of taxpayer money…no actual or perceived conflicts of interest.”
That is five promises in two sentences. How many of those promises does the Prime Minister think his Ministers have kept?

Boris Johnson: I believe that the Ministers of this Government are working hard and overall doing an outstanding job in delivering the people’s priorities, and that is what we will continue to do. If the right hon. and  learned Gentleman waits a little bit longer today, he will hear some of the ways in which this Government are going to take this country forward, with one of the most ambitious programmes of investment in infrastructure, schools and hospitals for generations. If he wants to make any particular allegations about individual Ministers or their conduct, he is welcome to do so. The floor is his.

Keir Starmer: I did not really hear an answer there, so why don’t we go through these commitments in turn, starting with bullying and harassment? The now former independent adviser on ministerial standards concluded that the Home Secretary’s behaviour was, in his words,
“in breach of the Ministerial Code”,
and, he said,
“can be described as bullying”,
which means:
“intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down.”
What message does the Prime Minister think it sends that the independent adviser on standards has resigned but the Home Secretary is still in post?

Boris Johnson: Sir Alex’s decisions are entirely a matter for him, but the Home Secretary has apologised for any way in which her conduct fell short. Frankly, I make no apology for sticking up for and standing by a Home Secretary who, as I said just now, is getting on with delivering on the people’s priorities: putting, already, 6,000 of the 20,000 more police out on the streets to fight crime and instituting, in the teeth of very considerable resistance, a new Australian-style points-based immigration system. She is getting on with delivering what I think the people of this country want. She is showing a steely determination, and I think that is probably why the Opposition continue to bash her.

Keir Starmer: The reality is that any other Prime Minister would have fired the Home Secretary and any other Home Secretary would have resigned, so I think we will chalk that up as one broken promise.
On to the next: no leaking. Over the summer, we saw repeated leaks about which areas would go into restrictions. The Prime Minister’s plans to go into a second national lockdown were leaked all over the national papers, resulting in a truly chaotic press conference, and we have seen more leaking in the past 24 hours. This serial leaking is causing huge anxiety to millions of people about what is going to happen next. I know there is supposed to be an inquiry under way, but can the Prime Minister tell us, is he any closer to working out who in his Government is leaking this vital information?

Boris Johnson: I have already told you, Mr Speaker, that as soon as we have any information about anybody leaking, we will bring it to the House. But I may say that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is really concentrating on trivia when what the people of this country want is to see his support, and the support of politicians across the House, for the tough measures that we are putting in to defeat coronavirus. He makes various attacks on, I think, my leadership and handling of the ministerial code. I would take them a lot more seriously, frankly, if the Leader of the Opposition could explain why the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is still a member of the Labour party.  Does he support the right hon. Gentleman’s continued membership of the Labour party—yes or no? Why doesn’t he answer that question?

Lindsay Hoyle: I think I will just answer that with the fact that it is actually Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.

Boris Johnson: It is a perfectly reasonable question, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: I think I will make that decision, Prime Minister. Thankfully we have got the sound—we do not want to lose it. [Laughter.]

Keir Starmer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The difference, of course, is that I am tackling the issues in my party and the Prime Minister is running away from the issues in his. I take it from his answer that he has no idea who is leaking from his Government, so I think we will put that as another one in the “no” column.
Moving on, to perhaps the most serious of the promises under the code: no misuse of taxpayers’ money. For weeks, I have raised concerns about the Government’s spraying taxpayers’ money on contracts that do not deliver. The problem is even worse than we thought. This week, a Cabinet Office response suggests that the Government purchased not 50 million unusable items of protective equipment but 180 million, and a new report this morning by the National Audit Office identifies a further set of orders totalling £240 million for face masks for the NHS that it cannot use. So will the Prime Minister come clean: how many hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on equipment that cannot be used?

Boris Johnson: Actually, to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question directly, 99.5% of the 32 billion items of personal protective equipment that this country secured conformed entirely to our clinical needs, once we had checked it. Of all the pathetic lines of attack that we have heard so far, this is the feeblest, because if you remember, Mr Speaker, we were faced with a national pandemic on a scale that we had not seen before and the Government were being attacked by the Labour party for not moving fast enough to secure PPE. I remember the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that we needed to unblock the blockages in the system and that we needed to shift heaven and earth to get it done. That is what he said at the beginning of the pandemic. Then he complained that we moved too slow. Now he is saying that we moved too fast. He has got to make up his mind what his attack is.

Keir Starmer: It is obvious that either the Prime Minister does not know how much taxpayers’ money has been wasted, or he does not care. So far, we have bullying, harassment, leaking and the misuse of taxpayers’ money. I must say to the Prime Minister that it is not looking good so far, but let us press on. The next one is
“no actual or perceived conflict of interest”.
Where do I start on this one? Last week, we learned that suppliers with political connections were 10 times more likely to be awarded Government contracts, and this week The Sunday Times reports that the Health Secretary appointed one of his closest friends to a key advisory role.  This friend also is a major shareholder, as it happens, in a firm that specialises in lobbying the Government on behalf of its clients, and some of those clients have secured tens of millions of pounds of Government contracts during the pandemic. Was the Prime Minister aware of this apparent conflict of interest?

Boris Johnson: In so far as there are any conflicts of interest, they will be evident from the publication of all the details of all the contracts. Again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman just seems to be attacking the Government for shifting heaven and earth, as we did, to get the medicines, the PPE, the equipment and the treatments that this country needed. What it reveals really is a deep underlying Labour hatred of the private sector, and it is actually thanks to the private sector and the Government working with the private sector that the UK was able to produce the world’s first usable treatment for the disease in dexamethasone and has worked hard to secure huge numbers of doses of the world’s first usable room-temperature vaccine. That is the private sector working to deliver for the people of this country and it is this common-sense Conservative Government working with the private sector, rather than abominating it and relying exclusively on some deranged form of state control. How else does he think we could possibly have done it?

Keir Starmer: No one is knocking the private sector; the Government are knocking the taxpayer, and that is not trivial. So I think it is a clean sweep: bullying, harassment, leaking, wasting public money and obvious conflicts of interest. It is the same old story: one rule for the British public and another for the Prime Minister and his friends. Just look at the contrast between his attitude to spraying public money at contracts that do not deliver and his attitude to pay rises for the key workers who kept the country going during this pandemic. If you have a hotline to Ministers, you get a blank cheque, but if you are on the frontline tackling covid, you are picking up the bill. Will the Prime Minister finally get his priorities right, stop wasting taxpayers’ money and give police officers, firefighters, care workers and other key workers the pay rise they so obviously deserve?

Boris Johnson: It is this party and this Government who have given key workers and public sector workers above-inflation pay rises this year, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, whether that is the police, the Army or nurses, who are now getting 12.6% more than they were three years ago. It is this Government who will continue to increase the living wage, as he will discover if he can just contain his impatience for a few minutes.
Indeed, it is this Government who have not only delivered free school meals and a vast increase in spending on development around the world but have looked after the poorest and the neediest. One of the most important facts about the £200 billion coronavirus package of support that the Chancellor has devised for lives and livelihoods across the country is that the benefits overwhelmingly prioritise the poorest and neediest in the country. The reason we can do that is because we have a Government who understand how to run a strong economy and who ensure that they take the tough decisions now that will allow our economy to bounce back—that is what this Government are doing.

Laura Trott: I welcome the promised increase in education funding, and I look forward to hearing the detail this afternoon. Can I ask the Prime Minister that some of that money be spent on school building repairs, particularly for voluntary controlled and multi-academy trusts such as Orchards Academy and West Kingsdown in my constituency? Those types of school were unable to apply for the most recent round of funding and are in urgent need of repair.

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. That is why we have allocated an additional £560 million this year for essential maintenance and upgrades in the school estate, on top of more than £1.4 billion. In Kent, £20 million is going to the local authority, including for West Kingsdown Church of England Primary School, and nearly £6 million is going to Kemnal Academies Trust. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue her excellent campaign.

Ian Blackford: Protecting the foreign aid budget has long been a source of unity and agreement across this House and across the four nations of the United Kingdom. At the last general election, every major party recommitted to that moral mission of helping the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. Indeed, a senior Government Minister said that it
“paved the way for Britain to meet the UN target of spending 0.7% of national income on aid…and that remains our commitment.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 667.]
Does the Prime Minister agree with that senior Government Minister?

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, listening to Opposition Members talking about the 0.7% commitment, you would think that they invented it. It was a Conservative Government who instituted it, and this country can be incredibly proud of what we have delivered for the poorest and neediest people in the world. That will continue. On any view, this country is one of the biggest investors or donors overseas in all its forms—I think we are the second biggest in the G7—whether in percentage terms or cash terms, and that will continue. We have seen a massive increase, as the House will know, in spending on our collective overseas commitments. By the way, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, that is also of huge benefit to Scotland, where there are people in East Kilbride who do a fantastic job in development overseas.

Ian Blackford: I am glad that the Prime Minister seemed to agree with the quote, because the words I quoted were his—it is exactly what he told the House of Commons less than six months ago. I take it that the briefing that has gone on is not true and that the 0.7% commitment will remain in place.
We need to recognise that covid-19 is a global pandemic, and while we are all in the same storm, some nations have better life rafts. The World Bank estimates that the pandemic will push 88 million to 150 million people into extreme poverty. In the world’s poorest countries, hunger and cases of malaria are rising, and the UN projects that as many as 11 million girls may never return to education after school closures. The UK Government cannot eradicate the threat of covid-19 if there is still a threat around the world. Does the Prime Minister agree that keeping the 0.7% commitment is not only the right thing to do morally but is the sensible thing to do in helping with the eradication of covid-19?

Boris Johnson: Of course I agree that the UK should be playing a leading role in eradicating covid-19 around the world. That is why one of the wonderful features of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, if it is approved, is that it is going to be sold at cost to partners around the world. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman knows quite how much the UK has already given to COVAX—to the global Vaccine Alliance. I can tell him. It is more than virtually any other country in the world. We should be proud in this country of what we are doing: I think about the $800 million to support COVAX, to say nothing of what we are doing with Gavi and CEPI—the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations—and other organisations. We are in the lead in promoting and in inventing vaccines, but also in making sure that the poorest and neediest around the world get those vaccines. I think the people of this country should be very proud of what they are doing—what you are doing.

Kate Griffiths: I welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge in the 10-point plan to plant 30,000 hectares of trees a year by 2025. Farmers will play a crucial role in meeting this target. What financial incentives will be available to encourage them to make this long-term commitment?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is dead right. What we are going to do is use the new freedoms we have after leaving the common agricultural policy to support farmers to beautify the landscape to make it less prone to flooding, and we are putting £640 million from the nature for climate fund into helping to support the planting of 30,000 hectares of trees by 2025—every year by 2025.

Edward Davey: Three weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister to support unpaid carers, who are facing extreme hardship during covid, by raising carer’s allowance by £20 a week. It is very disappointing that Ministers have not found that money for carers, but have found hundreds of millions for contracts handed out to Conservative party cronies. It is Carers Rights Day tomorrow, so can I ask the Prime Minister again: will he raise carer’s allowance by £20 a week, as Liberal Democrats are campaigning for, or will he explain why Conservatives think unpaid carers do not deserve extra help?

Boris Johnson: I would be happy to look at that specific grant again, but I have to say that if the right hon. Gentleman looks at what we have done so far with supporting universal credit and the substantial increases in the living wage, we are doing our best to support families who are the neediest across the whole of the UK. As I say, one of the stunning and one of the most remarkable features of the package that we have given to support lives and livelihoods is that the benefits do fall disproportionately, and quite rightly, on the poorest and the neediest.

Dehenna Davison: I am sure that, like me, the Prime Minister welcomes the incredibly valuable contribution of our essential workers in keeping our supplies actually moving, our economy turning and keeping us safe, but we know that many of our constituents are facing challenges through  covid. So, on that note, does the Prime Minister agree with me and many colleagues that, as we are having intense discussions on how to balance the nation’s finances, now is not the time for an MPs’ pay rise?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I do agree with that, and that is why we have frozen ministerial salaries this year, as indeed they have been frozen by successive Conservative Governments since 2010. I know that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will have heard my hon. Friend and I would encourage it not to proceed.

Stephen Farry: The Northern Ireland business community is extremely concerned that it is now impossible to be ready to fully implement the protocol from 1 January. Its top priority is to ask the EU for an adjustment or grace period. This request is based on respect for the protocol, and is not about an extension to the transition period. Will the Prime Minister give his support to this ask?

Boris Johnson: Of course we are not going to extend the transition period, but we want to make practical arrangements to help businesses in Northern Ireland. We have agreed, for instance, a one-year adjustment period so there is no disruption to the flow of medicines, and we have already launched a £200 million trader support service to help agrifood businesses and others. More details will be announced shortly.

Greg Smith: Flood risk from new development is a key concern for many of my constituents, as highlighted by a case in Ickford, where developers promised that flood risk would be a once-in- 100-year eventuality, yet the village has flooded three times this year alone. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend commit to seriously beefing up the way flood risk is assessed and treated as part of the planning process?

Boris Johnson: I have deep sympathy for Ickford in my hon. Friend’s constituency and the flooding it has suffered; I know Ickford. It is very important that local authorities follow the rules in making their planning decisions, as I am sure he would agree, and we are making a huge investment—£5.2 billion—in flood defences to protect the 300,000 homes at risk across the country.

Navendu Mishra: The Greater Manchester Metrolink tram system cuts carbon emissions, improves air quality and reduces congestion on our roads. As part of the post-covid recovery plan, will the Prime Minister commit funding to extend the tram network from East Didsbury to Stockport town centre in order to improve access and give much-needed support to businesses and communities in my constituency?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will study the plan he proposes with care, although I should tell him that a massive infrastructure programme is already under way, as the Chancellor will shortly announce, and it may be that in due time the scheme the hon. Gentleman proposes could benefit from those investments.

Andrew Rosindell: With the London area potentially entering stricter tier 3 or tier 2 lockdown measures and the devastating consequences  that will have on jobs, livelihoods and businesses, and indeed the effects on physical and mental health, as the Prime Minister is committed to following the evidence, will he agree to a full public cost-benefit analysis of the impact on our economy and public health before he introduces anything that will lead to years of economic harm that could end up being worse for people’s lives than the virus itself?

Boris Johnson: I have high regard for my hon. Friend, and he is right to call attention to the dangers and damage that lockdowns can do. Of course, they have to be weighed against the damage to health caused by a wave of coronavirus that drives out all other patients from our hospitals and affects the health of non-covid patients as well so very badly. We will of course be setting out an analysis of the health, economic and social impacts of the tiered approach and the data that supports the tiering decisions, as we have done in the past.

Rupa Huq: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 November.

Boris Johnson: The hon. Member is right to call attention to the difficulties many people are facing because of the EWS1 form, and I sympathise very much with them. Mortgage companies should realise that they are not necessary for buildings of under 18 metres; it is absolutely vital that they understand that while we get on with the work of removing cladding from all the buildings we can, and that is what this Government are continuing to do.

Miriam Cates: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 November.

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend asks an excellent question, and we are developing a national bus strategy that will look at the needs and how to get more people to use our buses. In addition to championing green zero-carbon or low-carbon buses, we are providing £20 million for a rural mobility fund to support demand in rural areas.

Ellie Reeves: Food bank use in my constituency has been increasing steadily as working families, including public sector key  workers, struggle to make ends meet. Can the Prime Minister therefore tell us whether he thinks the median pay of teaching assistants of just under £14,000, and of nursing auxiliaries of £18,000, is enough to live on? I will ask him again: instead of delivering a public sector pay freeze later today, will he give those key workers a well-deserved pay rise?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady is right to value key workers and the amazing job that they do—particularly teachers and teaching assistants, who have done fantastic work in getting our kids back into school over the last few months and continue to do an amazing job. I am proud not just of the work we have done to increase public sector pay, with an inflation-busting package in July for the third year running, but of what we are doing to support the record increases in the living wage—delivered by a Conservative Government, invented by a Conservative Government. Conservative Governments can do these things because we understand how to run a strong economy.

Gareth Davies: Lincolnshire has one of the highest populations of veterans in our country; as such, I warmly welcome the recent announcement to boost funding for our armed forces. Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the best ways we can help our veterans is to encourage employers to hire a hero?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for the campaigns that he is running to support veterans. We support schemes such as that run by Gerry Hill and his team at Hire a Hero, and we are encouraging businesses to hire veterans with a new national insurance tax break for businesses that do so and, of course, making it easier for veterans to join the civil service.

Rachael Maskell: BioYorkshire will place York at the heart of the global bioscience economy. It will cut carbon by 2,800 kilotons, create 4,000 green-collar jobs, upskill 25,000 workers and return £5 billion to the Treasury. The Government are supportive but are delaying investment until at least the devolution deal. Unemployment in York is soaring. We need this investment now. Will the Prime Minister start the recovery by investing in BioYorkshire?

Boris Johnson: As the hon. Lady knows, the Government are committed to the 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, which will generate 250,000 jobs across the country just in the immediate term. I hope very much that BioYorkshire will be among the beneficiaries, and I cannot see any reason why it should not be.

Stephen Hammond: The news of the covid vaccine is great for both my constituents in Wimbledon and people across the country, but I believe that when my constituents get sick, they should have the right to access the highest-quality healthcare. The plans to improve and invest in St Helier Hospital would do just that. Will the Prime Minister work with me to ensure that those plans are brought forward as quickly as possible, despite the opposition from local Labour politicians?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. How typical of Labour politicians locally to oppose what they call for nationally. I am proud that we are going ahead with a  brand new state-of-the-art hospital to be built in Sutton, with most services staying put in modernised buildings at Epsom and St Helier. The new hospital will come as part of the Government’s commitment, as I say, to build 48 hospitals by 2030 in the biggest hospital building programme of a generation.

Tonia Antoniazzi: In the summer, we stood on our doorsteps and clapped for all our key workers; today, they will be hit once again with a real-terms cut to their wages by the Chancellor’s pay freeze. I really do wonder, does the Prime Minister actually realise that claps do not pay the bills?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady will recognise, at a time when the private sector—when the UK economy—has been so badly hit, and when private sector workers have seen falls in their income, that it is right that we should be responsible in our approach to public finances, and that is what we are going to be. She should be in no doubt that the commitments we have made have been outstanding so far: above-inflation increases for public sector workers just in July; a 12.6% increase for nurses over the past three years; the biggest ever increase in the living wage—and more to come in just a minute if she will contain herself.

Richard Fuller: Last month, year 6 students at the Edward Peake Church of England Middle School in Biggleswade wrote to me about the impact of lockdown and their ideas for promoting a healthier planet, which include encouraging people not to put waste into the sea; planting more trees; building more electric cars; making more nature reserves; cleaning up the waterways; encouraging more local electricity production, and reducing air pollution so children can see the stars. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking the students and their teacher, Miss Twitchett, and tell the House whether their ideas can play a part in his green plan?

Boris Johnson: It is quite uncanny; it is as though Miss Twitchett and her class were standing over my shoulder as I wrote the 10-point plan, and I thank them for their telepathic inspiration. I passionately agree that that is the right way forward for our country. It will mobilise about £12 billion of Government investment and possibly three times more from the private sector, and create 250,000 to 300,000 jobs. It is a fantastic way forward for our country.

Jon Trickett: I am sure that the Prime Minister will share the pleasure that we all have in the great engineering skills that are displayed in our country, especially in the north, and agree that one of the great jewels in the crown are the engineers at Rolls-Royce. Is he aware that Rolls-Royce is about to offshore 350 jobs from the north of England? That will be a devastating blow to that part of the country and remove part of our national industrial infrastructure. Does he agree with the workforce, who are campaigning, that it is in the national interest to retain those jobs in our country? Finally, will he use everything in his power to ensure that that offshoring does not take place?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is so right to support Rolls-Royce, one of the great companies in our country. Obviously, at the moment Rolls-Royce is  suffering from the problems in the aerospace sector—the fact that no one is flying. When a company makes a lot of its money from servicing aero engines, as Rolls-Royce does, it is a very difficult time at the moment. We are keen to work with Rolls-Royce to ensure that that company has a long-term future as a great, great British company. He makes an excellent point, and I can assure him that the Government are on it.

Andrew Percy: I am aware that there are obviously no perfect options at the moment, but may I raise with the Prime Minister the issue of pubs and bars that will be affected by the tier 2 restrictions? Many, such as Yorkshire Ales in Snaith in my constituency, have invested considerable amounts of money in being covid-secure, and are now to be denied access to their valuable pre-Christmas trade. Will the Prime Minister look again at those tier 2 restrictions, and if not, look at what other financial support can be offered to those bars and pubs that cannot provide a substantial food offering during this period?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right about the need to support local business, particularly in the hospitality sector. He should know that, in addition to the £3,000 grant for businesses that are forced to close, we have another grant of £2,100 a month for businesses that are in the hospitality and accommodation sector. That is on top of the support that we have given via furlough, obviously, and via business rates and the cuts in VAT, which were intended to support the hospitality sector as well. I am keenly aware of how difficult it is for those pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels that will face  a tough time in the tiers as we come out next week.   We will do our level best to support them. I should say that we are also giving £1.1 billion to local councils to help them support businesses that are facing difficulties.
I just want to say one thing to the House. As we come out of the lockdown, the way forward is not just through the vaccine, which we hope we will be able to start rolling out in the course of the next few weeks and months, but through the prospect of mass community testing. I pay tribute to the people of Liverpool, who have really stepped up in huge numbers. Hundreds of thousands of people in Liverpool have been tested and that seems to have helped to drive the virus down in Liverpool. We want to see that type of collective action—stepping up to squeeze the disease—happening across the country. That, I think, is a real way forward that will enable the hospitality, accommodation and hotel sector to come out of the restrictive measures quicker than has been currently and recently possible. We have two new very important scientific developments—

Lindsay Hoyle: I think you have managed to answer the question, Prime Minister. I am very pleased that the House of Commons has been able to help to deliver an improvement to the sound and vision from No. 10 today, but we would like our kit back this afternoon, Prime Minister! [Laughter.]
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast

Lindsay Hoyle: Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer addresses the Chamber, I would like to point out that British Sign Language interpretation of the statement is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Rishi Sunak: Mr Speaker, today’s spending review delivers on the priorities of the British people. Our health emergency is not yet over and our economic emergency has only just begun, so our immediate priority is to protect people’s lives and livelihoods. But today’s spending review also delivers stronger public services, paying for new hospitals, better schools and safer streets, and it delivers a once-in-a-generation investment in infrastructure, creating jobs, growing the economy and increasing pride in the places we call home.
Our immediate priority is to protect people’s lives and livelihoods, so let me begin by updating the House on our response to coronavirus. We are prioritising jobs, businesses and public services through the furlough scheme, support for the self-employed, loans, grants, tax cuts and deferrals, as well as extra funding for schools, councils, the NHS, charities, culture and sport. Today’s figures confirm that, taken together, we are providing £280 billion to get our country through coronavirus. Next year, to fund our programmes on testing, personal protective equipment and vaccines, we are allocating an initial £18 billion. To protect the public services most affected by coronavirus, we are also providing: £3 billion to support NHS recovery, allowing it to carry out up to a million checks, scans and operations; over £2 billion to keep our transport arteries open, subsidising our rail network; more than £3 billion to local councils; and an extra £250 million to help end rough sleeping. Although much of our coronavirus response is UK-wide, the Government are also providing £2.6 billion to support the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Taken together, next year, public services funding to tackle coronavirus will total £55 billion.
Let me turn to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic forecasts. I thank the new chair, Richard Hughes, and his whole team for their work. The OBR forecasts that the economy will contract this year by 11.3%, the largest fall in output for more than 300 years. As the restrictions are eased, it expects the economy to start recovering and growing by 5.5% next year, 6.6% in 2022 and then 2.3%, 1.7% and 1.8% in the following years. Even with growth returning, our economic output is not expected to return to pre-crisis levels until the fourth quarter of 2022. The economic damage is likely to be lasting. Long-term scarring means in 2025, the economy will be around 3% smaller than expected in the March Budget.
The economic impact of coronavirus and the action we have taken in response means that there has been a significant but necessary increase in our borrowing and debt. The UK is forecast to borrow a total of £394 billion this year, equivalent to 19% of GDP—the highest recorded level of borrowing in our peacetime history. Borrowing falls to £164 billion next year and to £105 billion in ’22-’23, then remains at around £100 billion, or 4% of GDP, for the remainder of the forecast. Underlying debt, after removing the temporary effect of the Bank  of England’s asset purchases, is forecast to be 91.9% of GDP this year. Due to elevated borrowing levels and a forecast persistent current deficit, underlying debt is forecast to continue rising in every year, reaching 97.5% of GDP in ’25-’26.
High as these costs are, the costs of inaction would have been far higher. But this situation is clearly unsustainable over the medium term. We could only act in the way we have because we came into this crisis with strong public finances. We have a responsibility, once the economy recovers, to return to a sustainable fiscal position.
This is an economic emergency. That is why we have taken, and continue to take, extraordinary measures to protect people’s jobs and incomes. It is clear that those measures are making a difference. The OBR now states, as the Bank of England and the International Monetary Fund already have, that our economic response has protected jobs, supported incomes and helped businesses to stay afloat. It has said today that business insolvencies have fallen compared with last year, and the latest data shows the UK’s unemployment rate is lower than that of Italy, France, Spain, Canada and the United States.
We are doing more to build on our plan for jobs. I am announcing today nearly £3 billion for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to deliver a new three-year restart programme to help over a million people who have been unemployed for over a year to find new work. But I have always said: we cannot protect every job. Despite the extraordinary support we have provided, the OBR expects unemployment to rise to a peak, in the second quarter of next year, of 7.5%— 2.6 million people. Unemployment is then forecast to fall in every year, reaching 4.4% by the end of 2024.
Today’s statistics remind us of something else. Coronavirus has deepened the disparity between public and private sector wages. In the six months to September, private sector wages fell by nearly 1% compared with last year. Over the same period, public sector wages rose by nearly 4%. Unlike workers in the private sector, who have lost jobs, been furloughed, and seen wages cut and hours reduced, the public sector has not. In such a difficult context for the private sector, especially for those people working in sectors such as retail, hospitality and leisure, I cannot justify a significant across-the-board pay increase for all public sector workers.
Instead, we are targeting our resources at those who need it most. To protect public sector jobs at this time of crisis, and to ensure fairness between the public and private sectors, I am taking three steps today. First, taking account of the pay review bodies’ advice, we will provide a pay rise to over a million nurses, doctors and others working in the NHS. Secondly, to protect jobs, pay rises in the rest of the public sector will be paused next year. But, thirdly, we will protect those on lower incomes; the 2.1 million public sector workers who earn below the median wage of £24,000 will be guaranteed a pay rise of at least £250. What this means is that while the Government are making the difficult decision to control public sector pay, the majority of public sector workers will see their pay increase next year.
And we want to do more for the lowest paid. We are accepting in full the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission to increase the national living wage by 2.2% to £8.91 an hour; to extend this rate to those   aged 23 and over; and to increase the national minimum wage rates as well. Taken together, these minimum wage increases will likely benefit around 2 million people. A full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual earnings increase by £345 next year—compared with the position in 2016, when the policy was first introduced, that is a pay rise of over £4,000.
These are difficult and uncertain economic times, so it is right that our immediate priority is to protect people’s health and their jobs, but we need to look beyond. Today’s spending review delivers stronger public services—our second priority. Before I turn to the details, let me thank the whole Treasury team, and especially my right hon. the Chief Secretary, for their dedication and hard work in preparing today’s spending review. Next year, total departmental spending will be £540 billion. Over this year and next, day-to-day departmental spending will rise, in real terms, by 3.8%—that is the fastest growth rate in 15 years. In cash terms, day-to-day departmental budgets will increase next year by £14.8 billion.
And this is a spending review for the whole United Kingdom. Through the Barnett formula, today’s decisions increase Scottish Government funding by £2.4 billion, Welsh Government funding by £1.3 billion and Northern Ireland Executive funding by £0.9 billion. The whole of the United Kingdom will benefit from the UK shared prosperity fund, and over time we will ramp up funding so that total domestic UK-wide funding will at least match EU receipts, on average, reaching around £1.5 billion a year. To help local areas prepare for the introduction of the UKSPF, next year we will provide funding for communities to pilot programmes and new approaches. And we will accelerate four city and growth deals in Scotland, helping Tay Cities, Borderlands, Moray and the Scottish islands create jobs and prosperity in their areas.
Our public spending plans deliver on the priorities of the British people. Today’s spending review honours our historic, multi-year commitment to the NHS. Next year, the core health budget will grow by £6.6 billion, allowing us to deliver 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more general practice appointments. We are increasing capital investment by £2.3 billion: to invest in new technologies; to improve the patient and staff experience; to replace ageing diagnostic machines such as MRI and CT scanners; and to fund the biggest hospital building programme in a generation, building 40 new hospitals and upgrading 70 more. We are investing in social care, too. Today’s settlement allows local authorities to increase their core spending power by 4.5%. Local authorities will have extra flexibility on council tax and the adult social care precept, which, together with £300 million of new grant funding, gives them access to an extra £1 billion to fund social care—and this is on top of the extra £1 billion social care grant we provided this year, which I can confirm will be maintained.
To provide a better education for our children, we are also getting on with our three-year investment plan for schools. We will increase the schools budget next year by £2.2 billion, so we are well on the way to delivering our commitment of an extra £7.1 billion by 2022-23.
Every pupil in the country will see a year-on-year funding increase of at least 2%, and we are funding the Prime Minister’s commitment to rebuild 500 schools over the next decade. We are also committed to boosting  skills, with £291 million to pay for more young people to go into further education, £1.5 billion to rebuild colleges, £375 million to deliver the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee and extend traineeships, sector-based work academies and the National Careers Service, as well as improving the way the apprenticeships system works for businesses.
We are also making our streets safer. Next year, funding for the criminal justice system will increase by over £1 billion. We are providing more than £400 million to recruit 6,000 new police officers—well on track to recruit 20,000—and £4 billion over four years to provide 18,000 new prison places. New hospitals, better schools, safer streets—the British people’s priorities are this Government’s priorities.
Today’s spending review strengthens the United Kingdom’s place in the world. This country has always been and will always be open and outward-looking, leading in solving the world’s toughest problems. But during a domestic fiscal emergency, when we need to prioritise our limited resources on jobs and public services, sticking rigidly to spending 0.7% of our national income on overseas aid is difficult to justify to the British people, especially when we are seeing the highest peacetime levels of borrowing on record. I have listened with great respect to those who have argued passionately to retain this target, but at a time of unprecedented crisis, Government must make tough choices. I want to reassure the House that we will continue to protect the world’s poorest, spending the equivalent of 0.5% of our national income on overseas aid in 2021, allocating £10 billion at this spending review. Our intention is to return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows. Based on the latest OECD data, the UK would remain the second highest aid donor in the G7—higher than France, Italy, Japan, Canada and the United States. And 0.5% is also considerably more than the 29 countries on the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, which average just 0.38%.
Overseas aid is, of course, only one of the ways we play our role in the world. The Prime Minister has announced over £24 billion of investment in defence over the next four years—the biggest sustained increase in 30 years—allowing us to provide security not just for our country, but around the world. We are investing more in our extensive diplomatic network, already one of the largest in the world, and providing more funding for new trade deals. We should, however, judge our standing in the world not just by the money we spend, but by the causes we advance and the values we defend.
If this spending review’s first priority was getting the country through coronavirus and its second was stronger public services, then our final priority is to deliver our record investment plans in infrastructure. Capital spending next year will total £100 billion— £27 billion more in real terms than last year. Our plans deliver the highest sustained level of public investment in more than 40 years —once-in-a-generation plans to deliver once-in-a-generation returns for our country.
To build housing, we are introducing a £7.1 billion national home building fund, on top of our £12.2 billion affordable homes programme. We will deliver faster broadband for over 5 million premises across the UK, better mobile connectivity with 4G coverage across 95% of the country by 2025, the biggest ever investment in new roads, upgraded railways, new cycle lanes and  over 800 zero-emission buses. Our capital plans will invest in the greener future we promised, delivering the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for climate change. We are making this country a scientific superpower, with almost £15 billion of funding for research and development, and we are publishing today a comprehensive new national infrastructure strategy. To help finance our plans, I can also announce that we will establish a new UK infrastructure bank. Headquartered in the north of England, the bank will work with the private sector to finance major new investment projects across the United Kingdom, starting this spring.
I have one further announcement to make. For many people, the most powerful barometer of economic success is the change they see and the pride they feel in the places we call home. People want to be able to look around their towns and villages, and say, “Yes, our community—this place—is better off than it was five years ago.” For too long our funding approach has been complex and ineffective, and I want to change that. Today I am announcing a new levelling-up fund worth £4 billion. Any local area will be able to bid directly to fund local projects.
The fund will be managed jointly between the Treasury, the Department for Transport and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, taking a new, holistic, place-based approach to the needs of local areas. Projects must have real impact, they must be delivered within this Parliament and they must command local support, including from their Member of Parliament. This is about funding the infrastructure of everyday life: a new bypass; upgraded railway stations; less traffic; more libraries, museums and galleries; better high streets and town centres. This Government are funding the things that people want and places need.
Today I have announced huge investment in jobs, public services and infrastructure, yet I cannot deny that numbers alone can ring hollow. They stand testament to our commitment to create a better nation, but on their own they are not enough to create one. When asked what our vision for the future of this country is, we cannot point to a shopping list of announcements and feel that the job is done. So as we invest billions in research and development, we are also introducing a new immigration system, ensuring that the best and brightest from around the world come here to learn, innovate and create. As we invest billions in the building of new homes, we are also simplifying our planning system to ensure that beautiful homes are built where they are needed most. As we invest billions in the security of this country, we are also defending free speech and democratic rule, proving that our values are more than just words. And as we invest billions in public services, we are also protecting the wages of those on the lowest incomes and supporting jobs, because good work remains the most rewarding and sustainable path to prosperity.
The spending review announced today sets us on a path to deal with the material matters of Government and it is a clear statement of our priorities, but encouraging the individual and community brilliance on which a thriving society depends remains, as ever, a work unfinished. We in government can set the direction. Better schools, more homes, stronger defence, safer streets, green energy, technological development, improved rail and enhanced roads: all investments that will create jobs and give  every person in this country the chance to meet their potential. But it is the individual, the family and the community that must become stronger, healthier and happier as a result. This is the true measure of our success. The spending announced today is secondary to the courage, wisdom, kindness and creativity it unleashes. These are the incalculable but essential parts of our future, and they cannot be mandated or distributed by Government. These things must come from each of us, and be shared freely, because the future—this better country—is a common endeavour.
Today, Government have funded the priorities of the British people, and now the job of delivering them begins. Mr Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: This is an important statement, which is why it has run much longer than usual, but that was agreed with the Chancellor. Obviously, I have divided up the time to give an increase to the other parties as well. I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Anneliese Dodds: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This spending review was a moment for the Chancellor to take the responsible choices that our country needs. It was an opportunity to protect key workers, secure the economy and recover jobs in every part of our country.
During this crisis, we have seen who has taken responsibility: community health workers working round the clock to keep us all safe; the teachers who kept working so that key workers could too; the delivery drivers and shop staff who made sure that we had critical food supplies. Earlier this year, the Chancellor stood on his doorstep and clapped for key workers. Today, his Government institute a pay freeze for many of them. This takes a sledgehammer to consumer confidence. Firefighters, police officers and teachers will know that their spending power is going down, so they will spend less in our small businesses and on our high streets; they will spend less in our private sector. Many key workers, who willingly took on so much responsibility during this crisis, are now being forced to tighten their belts now; not in the medium term to which the Chancellor refers, but now.
In contrast, there has been a bonanza for those who have won contracts from this Government. Companies with political connections have been 10 times more likely to win Government contracts. So many businesses have worked tirelessly through the pandemic to support local communities, to keep critical supplies going and to produce drugs and vaccines—at cost price in AstraZeneca’s case—working with some of our country’s best scientists. But in their response to this pandemic, the Conservative Government have wasted and mismanaged public finances on an industrial scale: £130 million to a Conservative donor for testing kits that were unsafe; £150 million for face masks and £700 million on coveralls that could not be used; a £12 billion hit to our economy because the more effective, shorter, circuit breaker was blocked and a lengthier, more expensive lockdown put in place instead; £12 billion so far spent on a test and trace system that is still not working; and, today, news of £10 billion in additional costs for personal protective equipment, which was at least partly down to the Conservatives’ lack of pre-pandemic planning.
This waste and mismanagement is part of a longer-term pattern, showing that claims today around levelling up simply do not match the evidence: hospitals in Liverpool and Sandwell left unbuilt, over deadline by years and over budget by hundreds of millions of pounds; not a single starter home built, despite almost £200 million being spent; Northern Powerhouse Rail still not even approved six years after being announced; the courts modernisation programme three years behind schedule, letting victims down up and down the country; and people in the north more likely to have been made redundant during this crisis holding everything else equal.
Photo calls are not enough. We need delivery like the promotion of green manufacturing in the west midlands by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and the work of Labour Mayors and councils across the country. We need a Government in Westminster who take their responsibility towards all four nations seriously. That means informing the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland about the shorter timescale for this spending review ahead of time and fulfilling the “New Decade, New Approach” commitments. It means doing the right thing by the people of Wales to repair flood damage and make safe legacy coal tips. It means ending the barney between Westminster and Holyrood and instead working together in partnership to protect jobs and livelihoods.
It means a shared prosperity fund that is effective because it is delivered not on the whim of Conservative Ministers but from our devolved Governments and our regions. The levelling-up fund that the Chancellor just announced—his rabbit out of the hat—yet again, just as with the Beeching reopening programme, involves MPs going to Ministers and begging for support for their areas, rather than that change being driven from local communities. So much for taking back control! This is about the centre handing over support in a very top-down manner.
Labour has been clear about the responsible choices that we wanted the Chancellor to make today to recover jobs, retrain workers and rebuild businesses. To recover jobs, Labour called for £30 billion of capital spending accelerated over the next 18 months, focused on green initiatives, supporting 400,000 jobs and bringing us in line with countries such as France and Germany. This Government’s ambition is for half that number of new jobs. To retrain workers, we needed an emergency programme to support people back into work, but kick- start has been slow to get started, and the skills offer for those over 25 will not start until April. The Chancellor said at the beginning of his speech that our economic emergency “has only just begun”—try telling that to people who have been out of work since March.
Restart, announced today, must meet three key tests to be effective. It should help people who need it most, not cherry-pick. It should be up and running as soon as possible, yet it appears that only a fraction of Restart funding will be available next year. And it must involve local actors who know their communities, not be imposed from Whitehall. Of course, job search support ultimately only works if sufficient new jobs actually exist. That is why we needed ambitious action to boost our economy and to support our businesses.
To rebuild business, we called for a national investment bank. I welcome the announcement of a new UK infrastructure bank, given that valuable years have been  lost since the Green Investment Bank was sold off. Now the Chancellor must boost its firepower, and he must deliver on his Department’s responsibility for the drive to net zero. We have known since the Stern report that the climate crisis is the biggest long-term threat to our economy, yet far too often, this spending review locks us into a path that will make the transition to net zero harder, not easier, locking our economy out of the green jobs of the future.
To rebuild business, the Chancellor also needs to listen to business. We are less than a week from the end of the lockdown, yet we have heard nothing about whether extra support will be provided through the additional restrictions support grant for areas subject once again to tough restrictions. The Chancellor is still threatening employers with an increased contribution to furlough in January, at the worst possible time for increasing and building confidence.
In fewer than 40 days, we are due to leave the transition period, yet the Chancellor did not even mention that in his speech. There is still no trade deal, so does the Chancellor truly believe that his Government are prepared and that he has done enough to help those businesses that will be heavily affected? Will he take responsible action to help those excluded from Government support? Why is he still refusing to make the speedy fixes to universal credit that Labour has advocated, which would aid the self-employed, and why will he not provide families with certainty by ensuring that the increase in universal credit continues beyond April?
The IMF has made it clear time and again that now would be the worst time to slam on the brakes and put the car into reverse. It has called for a “meaningful additional push” from our Government to maintain fiscal support until the recovery is on a sound footing. The UK’s GDP is 10% smaller now than it was at the end of last year. We have seen the worst downturn in the G7. We needed ambitious action today to stimulate growth and maintain demand, and we needed the Government to take responsibility for the real reasons why people and communities up and down our country are being held back.
Over the past 10 years, child poverty has risen by 600,000. We have had the worst decade for pay growth in eight generations. The cost of childcare has risen twice as fast as wages. The number of young apprentices has plummeted. Last quarter, we saw the highest level of redundancies on record. Social care is in increasing crisis and, despite the Conservative party’s manifesto having promised a long-term solution, we are still waiting.
It was trailed in the press that the Chancellor would be moving 20,000 jobs out of London, yet cuts to local authorities over the past 10 years have seen 240,000 jobs lost—12 times that figure of 20,000—with the hardest-hit communities often those in the north, midlands and south-west. Today, the Chancellor could have matched his Government’s promise to do whatever is necessary to support local authorities through this crisis; he did not. And yet again he showed his Government’s lack of confidence in their own measures by failing to provide an equality impact assessment.
The measure of this Government will not be the number of press releases issued during this crisis or the number of pictures it published on Instagram; it will be the responsible action that they took, or did not take, for the sake of our country.
Next year, the eyes of the world will be on the UK as we assume the presidencies of the G7 and the UN Security Council and host the COP26 summit, yet now is the time that the Chancellor has turned his back on the world’s poorest by cutting international aid. It is in Britain’s national interest to lay the foundations for economic growth around the world—no wonder many British businesses have condemned his move.
Businesses have been more and more vocal about the problems with this Government’s last-minute approach, always one step behind when we need to plan responsibly for the future. We must learn the lessons from previous failures and ensure that the next challenge—the roll-out of the vaccine—is dealt with as efficiently, effectively and speedily as possible.
Next time, we need a comprehensive spending review that takes responsible choices—to build a future for our country as the best place in the world to grow up in and the best place to grow old in. People should have opportunities on their doorstep, not at the other end of the country. Everywhere in the UK should feel like a good place to set up home. That is what the Chancellor must deliver.

Rishi Sunak: I will address all the points made by the hon. Lady in turn, but it is important to note, up front, that despite her criticisms, there is actually a lot that she and her Opposition colleagues should welcome: more funding for public services; a pay increase for NHS workers; support for those on the lowest incomes; a once-in-a-generation investment in infrastructure; a multi-billion pound commitment to support those looking for work; a new schools building programme; and the Prime Minister’s 10- point plan. I could go on, Mr Speaker.
It is right that the hon. Lady should provide challenge, but I think, even if she does not, that the British people will judge this spending review as a reflection of their priorities: protecting jobs, defeating coronavirus, strengthening our public services and upgrading our infrastructure. If there is any politics here at all, surely it is unifying, and I think that, deep down, she will recognise that.
Let me address the specific points. The hon. Lady asked about pay and the importance of consumption, and I agree that of course there is an impact on consumption from pay. She will know that the marginal propensity to consume is obviously greater the lower down the income spectrum you go, which is why, in particular, we have protected the incomes of those on lower incomes.
Anyone in the public sector earning less than the UK median salary of £24,000 will receive a pay rise of £250 or more. Taken together with all the other things we have done, including giving a pay rise for those who work in the NHS, this will mean that the majority of public sector workers will see an increase in their pay next year. Also, pay progression and promotions—all of that—will carry on. We have increased wages for those on the national living wage: an extra £345 a year, as the wage rate goes up to £8.91. That, again, will help to drive consumption.
The hon. Lady rightly talked about delivery. We believe very firmly in making sure we can deliver the change we promised the British people. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and I chair something  called project speed, which is already delivering benefits, with plans for the landmark A66 upgrade shortened in time and reduced in cost, so we can get on with delivering what the people want on time and on budget, making a difference in their communities.
The hon. Lady asked about the levelling up fund and, I thought rather bizarrely, seemed to suggest that local Members of Parliament were not a good reflection on their local communities and able to articulate the local needs of their communities. I say to colleagues on the Opposition Benches that I am more than happy to hear from them and their local areas about the needs that they want met, because this Government will meet the needs of local communities up and down the country.
The hon. Lady talked about support for businesses during coronavirus. We have already put in place support through this winter period. The local restrictions grants we announced a while ago are paid monthly and they work. If your business has been closed, you will receive a grant of up to £3,000 per month depending on your rateable value. If you are a hospitality, leisure or accommodation business in a tier 2 area, where obviously the restrictions have an impact on your ability, you will receive a grant of 70% of that value up to £2,100. Those amounts mean that the business can help to cover the fixed costs of rent. They, of course, have access to the furlough scheme right the way through winter.
That comes on top of the other recent support announced for businesses. Today, I announced major reforms to the way the apprenticeship system works, giving businesses what they have long asked for: the flexibility to spend unused apprenticeship levy funds down the supply chain with small and medium-sized enterprises, and the ability to frontload payments for training. We are also looking at ways to introduce even more flexibility for some professions. We also recently announced an extension of the annual investment allowance for a further year up to £1 million, giving 98% of small and medium-sized businesses the ability to write off investments in full next year, which will help to drive their recovery.
The hon. Lady talked about welfare. Again, I stand proud of this Government’s and previous Conservative Governments’ record on this issue since 2010: hundreds of thousands fewer people in absolute poverty; several hundred thousand fewer children living in workless households; and income inequality lower coming into this crisis than when we first came into office.
This Government care greatly about those who are most vulnerable. We have demonstrated that during this crisis by the support we have put in place. The evidence shows that those on the lowest incomes have been protected the most by this Conservative Government. And that does not stop. The temporary uplift in universal credit runs all the way through to next spring, providing security for those families. Of course we will look, when we come to next spring, at the best way to support people and their families when we have a better sense of where the economy is and where we are with the virus, but we are providing extra support for next year: £670 million to help struggling families meet their council tax bills, worth about £150 each for families up and down the country. We also said we will maintain the £1 billion increase in the local housing allowance that we instituted this year into next year, providing support for many millions of families. We are also making  available further funds, as the House knows, to provide extra support for food and meals for children throughout the holidays next year.
The hon. Lady talked about support for local authorities. Perhaps she has not seen it yet in the document—that is fair enough—but we announced over £3.5 billion of extra support for local authorities next year specifically to deal with coronavirus. That comes on top of their core spending power increasing at decade-level highs of 4.5%. That £3.5 billion is there to help to meet the shortfall in sales fees and charges, and the unrecoverable losses in business rates and council tax that they have experienced this year, as well as £1.5 billion for general pressures. Let no one say that we are not standing behind our local authorities at this difficult time.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about green issues. I think she compared us with France and Germany and questioned this Government’s and the Prime Minister’s ambition. Let me say this about our plans. They are, I believe, among the most comprehensive and ambitious of any developed economy. She talked about France and Germany, but in this country we are phasing out certain vehicles in 2030; in France, it is 2040. In this country, we are phasing out coal in 2025; in Germany, it is 2038. She talked about the billions of pounds being spent by our friends, but it is important when we make these international comparisons that we understand the detail of what the other countries promise. The German numbers include the subsidies for renewables; ours do not. That happens separately outside our plan and is worth £44 billion, supporting renewable energy in this country through the tariff system, which is what Germany alluded to. The German numbers also include support for public transport, which ours of course do not, because that is something we do just in the ordinary course of business. I am proud of this Conservative Government’s record. We are the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero, and our economy has decarbonised faster than any other in the last 20 years. This Conservative Government will deliver the Prime Minister’s plans to get us to net zero, and that is something that I hope the whole House can welcome and support.
In conclusion, this spending review puts the full force of the Government behind the priorities of the British people, and while we may have many disagreements with the Opposition, I am confident that, in private at least, they will recognise the significant investment we are making to protect jobs, strengthen our public services and improve our infrastructure. We in this House are all answerable to the people we represent, and it is in their interests that we serve. Today, we have made some difficult choices to fulfil that responsibility, but with the positive news about the development of vaccines, the winter covid plan being announced by the Prime Minister and the very real hope that we are finally entering the final stages of our fight against coronavirus, now is the time for us to come together. The British people have been through so much this year, as have right hon. and hon. Members, and it is my belief that, with this spending review and the fresh hope given by medical advances, we can finally begin our recovery. Now, difficult decisions and all, we must deliver on the priorities of the British people.

Mel Stride: I very much welcome many of the positive measures that my right hon. Friend has just announced. However, he has inevitably  revealed some of the more difficult decisions that he has to make around a reduction in overseas development aid and the freezing of public sector pay next year—not across the board but on a selective basis—and there will be many difficult decisions of that type around spending and taxation in the future. Does he agree that, in terms of dealing with the deficit, it is not just about spending and taxation but also very much about growth? Does he also agree that we should look to private sector businesses and entrepreneurs to provide that growth? Can he set out how he is going to ensure that, as we come out on the other side of the crisis, businesses and entrepreneurs are given every possible support and freedom to power our economy forward over the years ahead?

Rishi Sunak: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that we will build our recovery through the dynamism of the private sector, and he is right about the power of entrepreneurship. Probably the most important thing we can do in that regard is to make it as easy as possible for businesses to take on new people. He will have heard about the unemployment numbers. We want to get as many of those people back into work as quickly as possible, so we will be looking at how we can make that as easy as possible for those dynamic businesses that are growing. At a very micro level in this spending review, we have also announced more funding for our start-up loan scheme, which provides discounted Government-backed loans of up to £50,000 for budding entrepreneurs to start their new businesses at the smallest level. I hope that that is something that he will support.

Alison Thewliss: This spending review was an important opportunity and an important test, and instead of posing for photographs in his favourite hoodie, the Chancellor should have been listening to those who are struggling. Spending £29 million on a festival of Brexit while they let weans go hungry at home and abroad just about sums up this tawdry Government. Reneging on the 0.7% aid commitment while the world struggles with a covid pandemic is just cruel. He says he has come to talk about jobs, but how many jobs has this Chancellor cost? Last month, the Office for National Statistics reported that since March 2020 the number of payroll employees has fallen by 782,000, and how many job losses could have been avoided if the Chancellor had not wound back furlough and threatened to cut it short? With a reported £1.4 billion for Jobcentre Plus, will he restore the job centres in Scotland that were closed by his Government?
What about those who have been ignored, patched, and blanked by the Chancellor at every turn—those excluded from his support schemes altogether, many of them limited company directors, freelancers, short-term PAYE workers, new starters and those on maternity leave, who have had absolutely nothing at all from this UK Government? He knows this and it is unjustifiable. He might have had some excuse back in March and April, but we are now in November, so I ask him: what does he expect these 3 million people to live on this winter? Will he look at the proposals for the directors income support scheme and the Equity creatives support scheme? Many of those excluded are in jobs in sectors that cannot safely restart due to the public health restrictions, so he must apologise and he must take action to put it right.
The Chancellor has spoken of the importance of getting young people into jobs, but he has utterly failed to address the reality of low-paid, part-time, precarious work. The Young Women’s Trust says that a staggering 1.5 million young women have lost income since the start of the pandemic. Many of them are in sectors such as retail and hospitality that have been clobbered by covid. What he should be announcing today is a real living wage: £9.50 an hour, as set by the Living Wage Foundation, not his pretendy living wage. I am glad to see that over-23s are eligible, but he said nothing about those in the 21-to-24 bracket, who are on £8.20 an hour, the 18-to-20s, on £6.45 an hour, the under-18s, on £4.55 an hour, and apprentices, on merely £4.15 an hour. What about them? Young people do not get a discount on their rent or their bills due to their age, but this Chancellor continues to short-change them in wages. A fair wage for a day’s work is the very least young people should expect from their Government. In not acknowledging the injustice, the Chancellor fails to protect the rest of our young people.
We need fair wages, too, for public sector workers. It feels like the Government are punishing people for working in the public sector. The absolute heroes who saw us through this pandemic have more than earned their pay. A public sector pay freeze takes £4 billion out of the economy, squeezes living standards and starves the economy of investment at the very worst possible time. These are the hospital porters, the teachers, the jannies, the police officers and the firefighters: those who kept our streets clean and our public services going. All of them—all of them—deserve better than applause on the Chancellor’s doorstep in the summer and a pay freeze in the depths of winter.
Not content with short-changing young people and public sector workers, the Chancellor wants to change RPI in a move that will impact about 10 million pension incomes and cost retirees over £100 billion. SNP Members urge him to see sense and not to pick the pockets of our pensioners. He must also use this spending review to make the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent, scrap the benefit cap and extend the £20 uplift to legacy benefits and those with disabilities—who, for unfathomable reasons, he seems to have forgotten even exist—and to increase the pitiful level of statutory sick pay.
Businesses across the country have been racking up debt while their incomes have not been there. Businesses are terrified by business rates relief coming to an end next year. Will the Chancellor look at this issue so that we can also act in Scotland? Will he make the VAT cut for the hospitality sector permanent to see it through this crisis?
We still await proper details of the shared prosperity fund and what it will mean for Scotland. The Scottish Government have done their part in preparation, and the Chancellor needs to bring forward proposals as a matter of urgency so that we can spend this money properly in Scotland rather than having it hived off to Tories in key seats in England.
The spending review is only for one year, and I appreciate why that is, but this failure to plan effectively for the future is why the UK is doing worst in the G7. What are the Chancellor’s plans for next year if things do not go as he expects? There is nothing in his statement about Brexit and the cost that that will bring, when we  see lorries queuing all the way through Kent. We call on him also to make a £98 billion stimulus to invest in a greener, better future for us all. None of this really has anything to do with the strength of the Union; it is merely a reflection of the powers that he has as Chancellor that the Scottish Government do not. So if he will not do these things—if he will not act—he must devolve the full financial powers and let the Scottish Government get on with the job.

Rishi Sunak: Let me run through the hon. Lady’s questions in turn. She asked about my favourite hoodie. I can tell her that it is not the one in the picture, but actually the kickstart hoodie that was given to me by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which I wear with pride.
The hon. Lady asked about the self-employed and again mentioned this number of 3 million people. I would like to address this point properly. It is not a number that I recognise, and I do not think that it is right to describe those people as excluded, as 1.5 million of those people are not majority self-employed; they are people who earn the majority of their income from being employed. That decision was taken to help target the support at those who really needed it. We have heard a lot from Opposition Members about support being targeted, especially regarding the self-employment scheme. That decision was made because if someone earns the majority of their income from employment, it is reasonable to assume that they will benefit from the furlough scheme, and that is how the majority of their earnings come in. That principle was supported at the time by every trade association that I spoke to when designing the scheme. In fact, those conversations were supportive of a much higher threshold than the one that we adopted, which was just “a majority”; others said that 60% or two thirds would be reasonable.
I hope that it is also of comfort to the House to know that the median amount of self-employment income that those 1.5 million people who are not majority self-employed have in their returns is somewhere between £2,000 and £3,000, so it is not the overwhelming part of their earnings. At that level, the universal credit system and other support that we provide will be significant in making up the difference.
The hon. Lady asked about welfare and again mentioned universal credit. I guess it is worth reminding the House that the Scottish Government have plenty of powers over tax policy and welfare policy—and, indeed, have used them in the past. I hear that there is to be a Scottish budget. We look forward to seeing what the Scottish Government decide to do with the powers that they have over both tax and welfare decisions.
The hon. Lady asked about jobs and talked about the OBR. I am glad that the OBR has today joined the IMF and the Bank of England in commending the Government’s economic response and recognising and stating explicitly that the interventions that we have put in place have reduced the level of unemployment and saved people’s jobs. I think that the OBR actually quantified that in its report today, putting the number at hundreds of thousands and confirming what the IMF said—that our response has held down unemployment.
The hon. Lady asked about young people. We are determined to help young people. They have borne the brunt economically of this crisis, which is in part why  we created the kickstart scheme—an ambitious programme under which, I think, 19,000 fully funded placements have now been created for those under the age of 24 who are at risk of unemployment. We also provide a cash bonus to businesses to take on new young apprentices. All those things will make a difference to our young people at what is, without question, a very difficult time.

Peter Bottomley: The House will be glad that the Chancellor has met the needs of the poorest, that he is going to maintain the increase to the state pension and that he is ensuring that people get opportunities to get back into work if they have been out of it. He talks about the £250 minimum for the lowest-paid people in the public sector. May I ask him whether that includes people working in local government or just national Government? That would be useful to know.
There will be a welcome for the increase in spending for schools. There are also many other things that people will think are sensible and that could—or should—have been done as the Labour Government went through the crisis in 2008, when they also implemented a public sector pay freeze. May I put it to him that it would be incredible if the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority were to force a pay increase on Members of Parliament when others do not get it? One way or another, will the Government—and perhaps you, Mr Speaker —talk to IPSA and ensure that that does not happen? I have the view that MPs’ pay should only be adjusted after a general election; that may be a minority view, but I think it would be wrong for us to have pay forced on us when others cannot get a pay increase.
Let me turn to overseas aid. When the Departments were merged, the Foreign Secretary said that the 0.7% figure would be maintained. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was elected in 2015, as I was, under a commitment to meet 0.7%. We were re-elected in 2017, and the only difference in 2019 was that the word “proudly” was put in front of that commitment. I am proud of that commitment. I will work with anyone across the House to make sure that a change of percentage does not happen. Obviously, with our GNP coming down by 10%, the amount that goes on aid will come down automatically. I fight to maintain the pledge that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and I made at the last general election.

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not like being brought into the situation on pay. What I would say is that there is no decision on pay; there is no award to MPs. There is a big mistake out there somehow that there is an amount that has been given. Let me reassure the Father of the House that that is not the case. It will not even be looked at til next year—probably later, towards Easter.

Rishi Sunak: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and powerful contribution. I respect what he has to say on aid. He is right about the language that was used. He will know the extraordinary circumstances that this country and this Government are grappling with. In order for us to meet our many other commitments and deliver on the British people’s priorities, we have had to make difficult decisions. Of course, it is something that I regret that we have to do, but I believe it is the right decision so that we can keep delivering on the priorities of the people at what is an enormously challenging time.
I turn briefly to my hon. Friend’s other questions. On local government employees, he will know that those pay levels are not mandated by central Government, and local government will typically make its own decisions. With regard to the social care workforce, which I know he also cares about, he will know that many of those workers are on the national living wage and will benefit from the 2.2% uplift—£345—that we have accepted.
On my hon. Friend’s last point, I can tell him that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote on behalf of the Government to IPSA in advance of this statement to inform it of the Government’s approach to public sector pay and to ask it to take that into consideration when it decides what it would like to do. Obviously, it is an independent body, but we have expressed our views in the light of the pay policy that we have announced today.

Christine Jardine: I listened intently to the Chancellor, but what I did not hear was enough—enough to protect jobs by extending furlough to the summer, enough for those in the public sector who have endured so much in this crisis and now will have a pay freeze, or enough for those millions of families facing enormous financial hardship because they are excluded. I point out to the Chancellor that they do exist; I can give him plenty of examples of people who phone my office every day in deep distress. Will he, for a minute, pause and put himself in the shoes of those 3 million excluded people, and then tell us why he still finds it acceptable to turn his back on them?

Rishi Sunak: I very much hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the £2.4 billion in additional funding that has been provided to the Scottish Government to use as they see fit. Of course, they can use that to support many of the causes that she articulates. In the interests of time, I will not go over the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), but we have provided comprehensive support to those who are self-employed; between 2.5 million and 3 million people have received £14 billion of support, with more to come. It remains one of the most generous ways to treat the self-employed that I have found anywhere in the world.

Gareth Johnson: I welcome this statement and the fact that the Chancellor recognises that debt has to be paid back. May I ask him about the changes in public sector pay? According to the ONS, private sector pay has fallen of late, whereas public sector pay has gone up by about 4%. The Chancellor’s announcement today that the 2 million lowest-paid public sector workers will receive £250 shows, does it not, that they are our priority? They are the people who need this most and they are the people we will give attention to.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would be wrong to describe a situation in which a majority of those working in the public sector next year will see an increase in their pay as a blanket pay freeze. We have done exactly as he suggests: we have targeted our resources on those who need them most, meaning that over 2.1 million people who earn less than £24,000 in the public sector, who comprise 38% of all those in the public sector, will see that increase of £250 or more in their pay packets.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: We welcome the additional £900 million for the Northern Ireland Executive—yet again, a benefit of Northern Ireland being part of this United Kingdom. I think we all believe that nurses, doctors and healthcare workers should receive a decent pay rise, but will the Chancellor acknowledge that there are other public sector workers who have been on the frontline on covid, such as our armed forces and our police officers, and look again at including them in the public sector pay rise? Of course, I agree with the Father of the House that that should not include Members of Parliament.

Rishi Sunak: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the £900 million in Barnett funding for Northern Ireland. He will be pleased to know that we have had productive conversations about fixing some technical baseline issues for the budgeting as well, which I know will be welcomed by the Executive.
With regard to pay, we are protecting those who earn less than the UK median salary. Whichever part of the public sector they work in, if someone earns less than £24,000, they will receive the £250. It is the right approach to provide that support to those with lower-than-average earnings.

David Davis: I lend my support to everything said by the Father of the House. Covid-19 means that the Chancellor’s strategy is broken into three phases: first, as we are doing now, spending everything necessary to stop the economy collapsing, which he is doing successfully; secondly, essentially from next spring, doing everything possible to maximise growth and recovery in the economy; and thirdly, after that, when things get on to an even keel, returning to conventional economics. Does he agree that the enormous deficit inevitably created in the first and second phases of the strategy needs to be financed in a similar way to major incidents such as wars, with very long-term bonds, not destructive short-term taxes?

Rishi Sunak: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I would distinguish between two things. The borrowing that we are carrying out this year, which is, as he knows, at a peacetime high, is financed through the gilt markets. He will be pleased to know that we push as much as we can to the long end of the curve relative to our international peers; the average maturity of our debt stock is about 14 or 15 years, which is almost double the average of the G7. He is right that we should do that. I would differentiate that from an ongoing structural deficit, which is with us for many years. As he said, our first priority coming out of this will be to get growth going again.

Ben Lake: On average, Wales received £400 million a year from EU structural and investment funds, sadly well above the UK per capita average due to our greater relative need. Promises have been made that Wales will receive not a penny less from the UK shared prosperity fund. The Chancellor has stated that he will match total UK funding, but will he also confirm that Wales’ share will not be diminished, that it will represent additional investment, and that the fund will be allocated according to need?

Rishi Sunak: We have said that as the EU funding that we are currently financing runs off, we will step in and replace it up to the tune of about £1.5 billion,  which is the UK amount. Obviously there are conversations to be had about how best to allocate that, what kinds of projects, and how it should be done. Some initial thoughts on that are published today, alongside more than £200 million of funding to start piloting the approach and working with communities to see what works best. I know that people in Wales will welcome that and I look forward to seeing the proposals that they come up with.

Derek Thomas: The Chancellor is quite right that people want to look back and see that their community is better off than before. To pick up on the point about the shared prosperity fund, Cornwall also received European funding and has been promised the shared prosperity fund, but it is often difficult in areas where the population is not so large to demonstrate value for money to the Treasury, and as a result we miss out. As he sets out more on the levelling-up fund and the shared prosperity fund, wages in Cornwall remain stubbornly low. Can he reassure me that those funds will address low wages, provide good jobs, improve skills, and provide the pathway to the skills and opportunities that people in Cornwall need?

Rishi Sunak: I commend my hon. Friend, because he consistently comes to the House to champion his constituents and talk about increasing the opportunities available to them. He is right that we want to make sure that we target our resources at the places where they can make the most difference. I look forward to hearing from him what projects he thinks will be able to transform the lives of his constituents and the communities that they are proud to call home.

Caroline Lucas: The Chancellor speaks of a fiscal emergency, but said not a word today about the climate and nature emergencies. There is a real risk that any green steps will be fatally undermined by the reckless pursuit of business-as-usual, environmentally destructive spending, such as the £27 billion road-building programme. He has said that there can be no lasting prosperity for people if we do not protect the planet, so will he adopt a new economic rule—a net zero test—and assess all spending and fiscal measures against the UK’s climate and nature goals, so that the whole package is properly green?

Rishi Sunak: The Government firmly believe in making sure that the recovery is green. I urge the hon. Lady to have a look at the national infrastructure strategy that we have published today, entitled, “Fairer, faster, greener”, which outlines the funding for all the green measures contained in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. I think it represents a comprehensive and ambitious path to deliver our net zero commitments.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy over the weekend and I assure him of my very strong support for virtually all of his package today. As a result of the pandemic here in the UK, 50,000 people have died and we are rightly moving heaven and earth to prevent more deaths here at home. Is he aware that his proposed breaking of the 0.7% promise and the 30% further reduction in cash will be the cause of 100,000 preventable deaths, mainly among children? This is a choice that I for one am not prepared to make. None of us in this House will be able to look our children in the eye and claim that we did not know what we were voting for.

Rishi Sunak: I am enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend for the conversations I have been able to have with him, and I fully respect his passion on this subject. He brings an enormous amount of experience to this House on this topic, and obviously he will have heard the reasons that I set out for doing what we are doing. I believe we can still make a difference to the world’s poorest countries with the measures that we have put in place. The most pressing issue that the developing world faces at the moment is the ability to deliver and deploy a coronavirus vaccine. He will know that we are the largest donor globally to the COVAX advance market commitment, the global initiative that is supporting developing countries’ access to vaccines. Right now, that is probably the most important thing we could be doing. We are doing it. We are leading the world in helping tackle coronavirus. I know that my right hon. Friend and I will carry on this conversation.

Stephen Farry: The covid pandemic has exposed structural weaknesses in our economy and society, but it is also likely to accelerate change in how people work, live and interact. May I also point out to the Chancellor that the excluded are a genuine problem? One of the difficulties is that the Government are not counting those who are sole directors of limited companies as part of the self-employed, which is how the figures are coming across as confusing. Does the Chancellor accept that public spending should not necessarily assume a restoration of the status quo ante but must be based on a transformation of our society and economy around social justice, inclusion, reskilling and investment in a green new deal?

Rishi Sunak: We want our recovery to be green and the national infrastructure strategy sets out an ambitious way to do that. Skills are at the heart of what we believe, giving people the tools they need to improve their lives and go on to better things. We are funding £375 million today to deliver our commitments on the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee and other matters. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that that remains an area of enormous focus for this Government.

Luke Evans: In the light of the difficulties the country faces with its finances, I was pleased to see the commitment to infrastructure. Is the Chancellor aware of Hinckley bridge on the A5, which has been awarded the status of “most bashed” bridge in Britain? It has been hit 25 times and causes a delay of six hours every time. It is a prime example of the pinch points littered up and down the A5, which strangle productivity. Will he commit to provide funds to the likes of the A5 to bring prosperity to the midlands and grow our economy out of the covid situation?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend articulates well an example of local pinch points being a blight on communities, stopping people improving the quality of their life and driving growth. It seems like a very good example of the type of project that our new levelling-up fund would be interested in, and I look forward to discussing it with him further.

Jeremy Corbyn: Throughout the corona crisis, public sector workers in all areas have delivered brilliantly and helped to save lives and look   after all our communities. Civil servants have lost 19% in wages over the past 10 years due to austerity, and there is a 12% gender pay gap that affects civil servants. So will the Chancellor recognise the importance of their work and their participation and give an increase of 10% to begin to make up the ground that they have lost over the past 10 years? Instead of saying to them that, as thanks for all their work, they will get a maximum of £5 a week for the lowest paid, will he return to proper national pay bargaining for all civil servants, so that those people who deliver for us are seen to be treated properly and fairly as we come out of the corona crisis?

Rishi Sunak: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to thank my fantastic team of civil servants in the Treasury, who have been extraordinary in their hard work and creativity throughout this crisis, and have remained so over the past few weeks in concluding the spending review. I put on record my thanks to them.
Unsurprisingly, my numbers are slightly different to those of the right hon. Gentleman. According to the ONS, before this crisis even started in 2019, there existed at least a 7% pay premium between the public and private sectors after accounting for characteristics and pensions. That gap no doubt has been exacerbated and widened over the past six to 12 months as a result of widening pay inequality between public and private sector pay. That is why I believe it is fair to take the approach we have, but I share with him a desire to protect those on lower incomes, which is why those 2.1 million people who earn less than £24,000 will receive a pay rise of £250.

Tobias Ellwood: I commend the Chancellor for having to make some very difficult decisions, but as President-elect Biden commits to a new era of western leadership, here we are about to mark the start of our G7 presidency by cutting our overseas aid budget. Downgrading our soft power programmes will leave vacuums in some of the poorest parts of the world that will further poverty and instability. It is likely to see China and Russia extending their authoritarian influence by taking our place. Will my right hon. Friend concede that we cannot genuinely claim to be global Britain, or claim to be serious about creating post-conflict strategies for countries such as Libya and Yemen—strategies that could lead to greater UK prosperity —when our hard power is not matched by our soft power? Will he meet me to discuss how these dated rules governing overseas aid should be updated?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend will I am sure welcome the very significant increase in our defence budget, which he has campaigned for to fix many of the issues of the past. He also alluded to our ability to help lots of different parts of the world in lots of different ways; Libya was one example that he gave. He will know that we are the fifth largest contributor to the UN’s peacekeeping operations. He makes a good point about aid rules. For example, we spend about half a billion pounds every year on peacekeeping and security operations in countries such as Libya, Mali, Somalia, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. That spending, that difference we make on the ground and that security that we bring to some of the world’s poorest places is not currently counted as overseas development aid.

Catherine West: The Chancellor has spoken well today of the scars that are felt by so many in society due to the triple whammy of covid, climate change and Brexit. Will he outline how he will manage to ring-fence money for mental health within the health spend? Mind, the charity, has said that phone calls have doubled, with many young people experiencing debilitating anxiety, depression and self-harm. Will he urgently look at mental health and ring-fence money for workforce changes, which are desperately needed, and for a decent revenue spend to bring mental health up into line with physical health?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I am pleased to tell her that of the £3 billion of extra money for the NHS that we have announced for next year to help recover from coronavirus, half a billion pounds of that is specifically earmarked to address waiting times in mental health services, to give people the support they need and to invest in the workforce that she rightly identified. I hope that gives her some reassurance. That is incremental to the existing NHS plans.

Pauline Latham: I congratulate the Chancellor on how he has handled the financial pressures that the pandemic has thrown at the Government, by thinking outside the box with brilliant, innovative solutions. However, I cannot support the new tiering system, because it is totally illogical and will force too many people to stay holed up at home. Hospitality businesses will fold in their tens of thousands, and I cannot condone that when they have spent tens of thousands becoming covid-safe.
I will also not support the reduction in the aid budget. This country has made an amazing difference to the lives of millions, but with the reduction of GNI and the proposed cut, the aid budget will be decimated. No longer will girls have 12 years of quality education—resulting in more child marriages, more instances of early childbirth, more female genital mutilation and more domestic violence. We will not be vaccinating millions, preventing polio and TB, providing medication for HIV or preventing malaria. We will be reduced to spending on humanitarian crises in emergencies only—

Nigel Evans: Order. Please could we just have a question?

Pauline Latham: So many things will be damaged, and our relations with the developing world will lose the soft influence that we have today. I cannot condone this, and therefore I will not be supporting this statement.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes a passionate case, and a right case, for our ability to help provide immunisation to the world’s poorest children. It is something that I proudly support, and I am happy to tell the House that we are the largest donor to the Gavi consortium globally, of any country in the world. That is the multilateral body that provides immunisation against infectious diseases for 75 million children, and as I have said, we are proudly the largest donor to that effort.

Nigel Evans: I just remind Members that we must not have a speech and eventually a question. Can we get quickly to the questions in order that we can get everybody in?

Angela Eagle: In this covid crisis, the Government have presided over an horrific double whammy of one of the largest per capita death rates in the world and the deepest recession in the G7, and that is before the Brexit disruption due at the end of the year. Is the Chancellor really proud of his record?

Rishi Sunak: My priority throughout this crisis has been protecting jobs. I am pleased to see that that is something the OBR, the Bank of England and the IMF all acknowledge has happened as a result of our interventions. We currently have an unemployment rate that is lower than Italy, France, Spain, Canada and the United States. So, yes, I do think what we are doing is making a difference to millions of people up and down the country.

Huw Merriman: Can I commend all the work that the Chancellor has done this year? Many constituents I speak to credit him personally with keeping them in a job. I am also pleased to see that, despite the financial pressures, the Chancellor is investing in transport. We see multi-year settlements for road, rail and active travel, and changes to the way infrastructure projects are appraised to increase the number of transport projects in deprived parts of the country, as well as a green book, a national infrastructure strategy, a red book and a £4 billion levelling up fund—and I am pleased to see that the Department for Transport is a sponsor. Can I ask him to keep a watchful eye on how all that is spent? Will he continue to place transport investment at the heart of our recovery and his long-term vision for this country?

Rishi Sunak: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. He is absolutely right, and he has championed tirelessly for his constituents and the country the importance of transport in our levelling-up agenda and in helping to drive growth and spread opportunity. He is also right that we should be careful about how this money is spent and make sure that it is delivered. I talked about Project Speed earlier, and I would welcome his involvement and advice on that. He will notice in the spending review document a new focus on outcomes across public services with a new public value framework. That will deliver what he is asking for.

Stewart McDonald: Could I raise with the Chancellor the issue of statutory sick pay? Even before the crisis hit earlier this year, statutory sick pay in the United Kingdom was not comparable with that in similar advanced economies. Sitting at only £95, we know that it is not enough for those who need it for self-isolation, and that it is estimated to make up only about a fifth of workers’ wages. Will the Chancellor look at building up the statutory sick pay mechanisms in this country, so that they are fit not just for the present times, but for the hard times people are going to face in future, and give workers the proper financial security they deserve and are lacking right now?

Rishi Sunak: At the beginning of this crisis, we made changes to the way that statutory sick pay operates, ensuring that it was payable from day one rather than day four, and for those who are self-employed, and we made changes to the way that universal credit, employment  and support allowance and the minimum income floor work—all to enable some of the things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It is worth bearing in mind that, on the last survey evidence we have, a majority of people —something north of 60%—get more than statutory sick pay as a result of the treatment of their employers.

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise that the Chancellor will have made the decision on 0.7% with an extremely heavy heart, but does he recognise that the respect felt for this country around the world is because we have championed causes throughout our history that matter to people everywhere, such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law? One of those causes is tackling extreme poverty. To cut our aid budget by a third in a year when millions more will fall into extreme poverty will make not just them poorer but us poorer in the eyes of the world, because people will worry that we are abandoning a noble ideal that we in this country have done more to champion than anyone else.

Rishi Sunak: I am enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend for the approach that he has taken and I appreciate our conversations on this topic. Of course he rightly feels passionately about it. As he knows better than anyone, there are many ways in which we exert our influence and our values across the world—aid is just one part. Even at 0.5%, we will still be more generous as a percentage of GDP than almost all our major economy peers—France, Japan, Canada, Italy, the United States—and than the average of the OECD. The values that he cares deeply about I also care deeply about, and I look forward to talking with him further about how best we can express those values and make a difference to those who need our help everywhere that we find them.

Rachael Maskell: Charities up and down the land will wonder why the Chancellor has abandoned them today. Charities have already accumulated £10 billion-worth of debt, and 20% of them could fold, despite the extraordinary work they have done for our nation during the pandemic. His statement says that there will be further rationing in the Office for Civil Society. Will he reflect on that and come back to the Dispatch Box with real money to support our valuable charities?

Rishi Sunak: Almost uniquely among other countries during this crisis, we have provided enormous financial support to our charity sector. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has distributed £750 million to small and large charities up and down the country. They do fantastic work, and it has been a difficult time for them. That is why this Government stood behind them at a time of acute crisis.

Gerald Jones: On 26 February, I asked the Prime Minister to offer additional support to Wales over and above the devolved settlement in the face of unprecedented flooding caused by Storm Dennis. The Prime Minister gave an assurance that funding would be “passported” to Wales. Nine months later, with winter approaching, that funding still has not been delivered. What discussions has the Chancellor had about that, and when does he think the Government will be able to deliver on the Prime Minister’s promises to Welsh communities?

Rishi Sunak: I believe we have, with £1.3 billion of extra funding next year for the Welsh Government to spend as they see fit on their devolved competencies, of which flooding is one. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can raise that with the Welsh Government. We in England are doubling investment in flood defences over the next few years to over £5 billion, protecting over 300,000 homes, and the £1.3 billion of Barnett funding for Wales will enable that funding to go to where it is needed.

Robert Syms: I thank the Chancellor for his statement. Over the last 10 years, we have spent over £100 billion on overseas aid, with a lot of it borrowed. Most of my constituents will understand the difficult decision that the Government have had to make. At 0.5%, our aid spending will be higher than that of most of our neighbours, and probably higher than the Major Government and many other Governments in the past. He has set out the recovery in GDP and growth over the next three or four years, and no doubt the budget will go up again.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. He is right—I think the average aid spending of the last Labour Government was 0.36%, so it will be sufficiently ahead of that. As I said, we intend to return to this over time when the fiscal situation allows. He will appreciate better than others the unbelievable uncertainty at the moment, but that is our intention.

Clive Betts: May I declare an interest in this question, as I suffer from myeloma, a form of blood cancer?
We all recognise and applaud the incredible work that the NHS and its staff have done for us all in the past few months. In terms of the future, does the Chancellor recognise, however, that much research for cancer is funded by charitable donations, which have fallen significantly during recent months for reasons that everyone can understand? To ensure that treatments continue to improve in the future, will he agree to fully fund cancer research to make up the difference in charitable donations, at least for the next few years?

Rishi Sunak: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that it is a topic on which he speaks passionately. He will be pleased to know more generally about our record spending on R&D next year of just shy of £15 billion; the exact allocation is for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but there is a significant increase for basic research. Also, within the Department of Health and Social Care Budget settlement, there is about £1.3 billion to fund research for the National Institute for Health Research and Genomics England—both of which do a fantastic job, and I am sure will be working on treatments for us all for many years to come.

John Penrose: I welcome the Chancellor’s continuing commitment to sound money. It is particularly easy to forget, in a year when we have just seen an 11.3% cut in the size of the economy, that ultimately, all the money that we are borrowing must eventually be paid back by us as taxpayers. So I urge him not to lose that focus, and as soon as possible to get back to a sustainable basis. As part of that, could he say more about the Restart programme, which he mentioned  earlier—a crucial thing to get members of the long-term unemployed back into work? How many people does he expect that to help, and what benefit does he expect that to have for our long-term, sustainable economy?

Rishi Sunak: As ever, my right hon. Friend speaks fantastically good sense. He is right; we will need to return to a sustainable fiscal position, not least to build resilience for the next crisis or shock that comes along. We want to be able to react in the same comprehensive and generous way that we did this time, and that requires us to have a strong set of public finances going into it.
My right hon. Friend is right about the Restart programme, which will help, we hope, around 1 million of those who are long-term unemployed; it will be an exciting and ambitious programme. The Institute for Employment Studies has spoken very well about the evidence in favour of that type of high-quality, individual work-focused approach making an enormous difference in getting people back into work. If we can do that, we can reduce some of the long-term scarring that they will face. So I have high hopes for what that programme can achieve.

Sammy Wilson: I first welcome the £900 million that will be available to the Northern Ireland Executive, which is a reminder to the people of Northern Ireland of the economic security that we have as a result of being part of the United Kingdom. The Barnett consequentials for Wales and Scotland should also be a reminder to the people there of the benefits of the Union.
May I ask the Chancellor one thing about the levelling up fund, the infrastructure bank and the shared prosperity fund? When will he have the details of access to those, and can he assure us that the access to all those funds will be equally available to different parts of the United Kingdom?

Rishi Sunak: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Those are UK-wide programmes and we hope to have more details about the infrastructure bank in the spring, so that we can get it up and running, at least in shadow form, as quickly as possible and make a difference to communities all around the United Kingdom.

Mark Pawsey: May I first join my hon. Friends in expressing concern about the proposal to reduce overseas aid, but welcome today’s announcements in particular on infrastructure, apprenticeships and research and development, which will create wealth and jobs? I also welcome the substantial support that the Chancellor has provided to help businesses and people get through coronavirus. However, my constituents know that those measures will all have to be paid for, so can he assure them that when this economic emergency is over, he will return to a policy of balancing the books?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although it is right to act in this way during the crisis, it would not be a sustainable way to operate. The important thing to know is that right now the focus should be on supporting businesses and jobs; but once our economic recovery is secure, we can turn our task to making sure that we have a strong set of public finances.

John Cryer: The Chancellor has announced a pay freeze for hundreds of thousands of public sector workers today who do not deserve it. Firefighters, care assistants and teaching assistants will all suffer a pay freeze. What is the assessment of the economic impact of that pay freeze? There must be one in the Treasury somewhere. What is it?

Rishi Sunak: It would be wrong to describe this policy as a blanket pay freeze when a majority of those working in the public sector will see an increase in their pay next year, because they earn less than the UK median salary of £24,000 or they work in the NHS, or, indeed, they are on the national living wage. Across all those areas, there will be a pay increase. That will benefit millions of people and make a difference to the economy.

Laura Farris: I welcome the significant financial commitment to mental health services. One of the striking takeaways in my constituency is the proliferation in anxiety, depression and sometimes addiction that is emerging from the crisis. We know that these have a pernicious correlation with long-term unemployment and, for that reason, I invite my right hon. Friend to keep a sharp focus on mental health spending over the years ahead, because the best training programmes and the best labour market interventions in the world will only work if the workforce is mentally well enough to engage.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and it is a topic that she knows very well. I hope that she was heartened to hear what I said earlier about £500 million of the increase of £3 billion for the NHS this year being specifically targeted on mental health to address all the things she said. She is right about the difference they will make for many people in our country.

Darren Jones: Over 4 million children are in poverty in the UK. Under successive Conservative Chancellors, Sure Start centres have closed, child trust funds have been slashed, nurseries today are on the brink of collapse and the number of children falling into poverty increases month after month. It is an unnecessary national tragedy, so why, especially at these difficult times, could the Chancellor not today commit to eradicating child poverty in his economic statement?

Rishi Sunak: On the last numbers, there are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty than in 2010 and 750,000 fewer children living in workless households than in 2010. The hon. Gentleman asked about nurseries and early years. He will be pleased to know that an above-inflation increase in the hourly rate for nursery providers is contained in the spending review.

Richard Burgon: A few months ago, the Conservative party was clapping public sector workers. Now it is cutting the pay of millions. This crisis should not be paid for on the backs of the working class, but it is. Over 2 million people are now paid less than the minimum wage—up fivefold. Sick pay is so low that people are forced to choose between their health and putting food on the table, and millions of people’s benefits—largely sick and disabled people—will rise by  just 37p a week. Instead of forcing millions into poverty, will the Chancellor impose a windfall tax on those who have made super-profits from this crisis?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Gentleman talked about those on the lowest pay. We accepted the recommendations from the Low Pay Commission to increase the national living wage by 2.2%. That will make a difference of £345 to full-time national living wage workers, as well as protecting those in the public sector who earn up to the average UK salary of £24,000, who will receive a £250 uplift.

John Baron: I commend the Chancellor on many of these measures, including the support for the lower-paid. When it comes to funding, I encourage him not to stifle enterprise through increases in taxes, as these are often counter- productive. May I raise with him the case of social care workers? They provide an essential service but they are often overlooked, in part because they span the private and public sectors. What more can he do for them? For example, further to my letter to him, will he consider raising their personal tax threshold so that they can take home more of their pay?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of social care workers. He will know that they are not formally part of public sector pay settlements, but many of them are national living wage workers, as he knows, so they will benefit from the increase of 2.2% that we are putting in place for next year. He will also know that we have already made a start in the Budget on our desire to raise the national insurance threshold, delivering cash benefits to people of about £100 this year, but it is something that we will keep under review for future fiscal events.

Martyn Day: The Chancellor has already allowed UK unemployment to rise to 4.8% and expects it to rise further, with redundancies at a record high. Will he now admit his mistake in leaving the 3 million without furlough or the self-employed help scheme and give contractors, freelancers, creators and others the help that they so desperately deserve?

Rishi Sunak: The OBR and others have said that our economic interventions have helped to keep down unemployment and protected jobs, and that is part of the reason why our unemployment rate is lower than that in Italy, France, Spain, Canada and the United States.

Philip Davies: I support the Chancellor’s decision to cut the overseas aid budget, which will be widely welcomed across the country in the real world, even if not always in here. I do not see why it should be controversial to say that we should spend only what we can afford on overseas aid. I suspect that the vast majority of the British public will be asking not why he has cut so much, but probably why we are still spending so much. If some of that money that he is saving can be spent on the much-needed and long-awaited Shipley eastern bypass and on some proper flood defences in the Shipley constituency then so much the better.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He makes an important point: this spending review is about delivering on the British people’s priorities. Yes,  we have made some tough choices, but we have done that so that we can continue investing in the things that our constituents value most. I look forward to talking to him further about the bypass and flooding defences that he needs, but, hopefully, with a doubling of our flood defences over this Parliament, it is something that we can make progress on for him.

Steve Double: May I place on record my thanks to the Chancellor for the recent announcement of support for airports, which has been very welcome? I also thank him for the measured and sensible way that he is approaching the unprecedented challenges that we are facing, but may I just raise the challenges facing the hospitality sector, which has been impacted more than any other? Although the Government have provided incredible support in recent months, the sector is facing real challenges this winter with the restrictions that we are placing on it. It says that 94% of businesses in tier 3 will be unviable, 74% in tier 2, and, even in tier 1, 30% of businesses are likely to be unviable. The sector has played an incredible part in our growth and job creation over the past 10 years and wants to continue doing so as we recover from this crisis. Will he please look again at what support we can give to the sector to make sure that it is still around in the spring to help our recovery?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is, as ever, a passionate champion for the hospitality sector, and he is right to be so. It employs 2 million people, often lower paid, and it has been hit harder than almost anybody by this crisis, which is why, as he acknowledged, we have put in place unprecedented support, from VAT cuts, initiatives over the summer such as eat out to help out, business rates holidays and now cash grants when those businesses are either closed or in tier 2 areas facing restrictions to help get them through the winter. Those grants in general will equate to the rental payment of most of those businesses—we have that information and that is the single biggest fixed cost of hospitality businesses; and, of course, they can furlough their staff. I know that it is difficult, but, hopefully, those interventions will make a difference, because he is right that we want them to be able to bounce back strongly.

Lilian Greenwood: The midlands engine has identified priorities for investment as transport, digital connectivity and energy. That is what we need to enable the midlands and the UK to recover from this pandemic and to build back bigger, better and greener, but, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the east midlands has suffered the lowest level of transport spending per person since 2014-15. We have also been at the back of the queue for all capital spending for at least five years. If the Chancellor is serious about levelling up, can he guarantee that the east midlands will receive the highest allocation of any region when he hands out his new levelling-up fund?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady talked about a few different things, transport and digital connectivity being among the most important to her region. This spending review delivers on both those priorities, with record amounts of spending on road, rail, intra-city transportation, buses and cycling, and, on digital connectivity, with our plans to bring 85% of the country to gigabit-capable broadband by 2025, we are also delivering on the green  plan that I outlined. I very much look forward to hearing from her and her local areas once we launch the levelling-up fund, because I am sure there will be projects we can make a difference to.

David Morris: I welcome the levelling-up fund. From the outset I have been championing the Eden Project North in Morecambe, which is coming shortly, so will the Chancellor meet me to discuss it, as it is exactly the kind of shovel- ready project that would level up not just Morecambe, but the whole of our region?

Nigel Evans: Did the Chancellor get that?

Rishi Sunak: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it was something about the Eden Project. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his ambitions for his area and this project. I know he has put a lot of thought and energy into it, as has his community, and I very much hope we can make progress in the coming years.

Richard Fuller: In his statement, my right hon. Friend said:
“The spending announced today is secondary to the courage, wisdom, kindness and creativity it unleashes. These are the incalculable but essential parts of our future, and they cannot be mandated or distributed by Government.”
He is right on that, and the private sector and businesses will respond to what he has announced today. When it comes to the consideration of taxes, will he look to protect the incentives for those who invest and grow such businesses?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment, as he is absolutely right, and from his own business experience he knows this well. He will know that one thing we do to incentive entrepreneurship through the tax system is our world-leading enterprise investment scheme and seed enterprise investment scheme programme, which provides significant support to private investors to help fund new businesses. We have expanded that scheme over time. I know he has thoughts on it, and I look forward to hearing them.

Navendu Mishra: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The taxpayer support for British businesses and jobs during this pandemic has been a lifeline for many, but today we hear that Rolls-Royce, which has benefited handsomely from the public purse while moving highly skilled jobs abroad, intends to shut down its historic Barnoldswick site until after Christmas and offshore the work to Japan, Singapore and Spain, in a clear attempt to break the current industrial action there. Does the Chancellor agree that these kinds of bully-boy, strike-busting tactics are utterly unacceptable and that all the financial support must be immediately withdrawn until Rolls-Royce comes to its senses, ends its lockout and gets back to the table with Unite the union to resolve this dispute?

Rishi Sunak: I know that the aerospace industry has been suffering a particularly difficult time over the past few months, and that has impacted businesses such as  Rolls-Royce and others up and down the supply chain. We have put some measures in place to help airports and get people flying again, and we enjoy conversations with specific companies all the time. I urge all companies to work constructively with their workforces through what is a difficult period and, we hope, find resolution. Collectively, we are all trying to protect jobs, but of course this is a very challenging set of circumstances.

Steve Brine: The £325 million for the NHS to invest in the new diagnostic kit is really welcome, as will be the £1 billion to begin tackling the elective backlog caused by covid. May I ask the Chancellor to stick with that? What freedoms will my local NHS trusts have to spend that money? I have constituents who are waiting for a knee op or a hip op, and although those may not be life or death issues, they are massively life-impacting issues, as people are being prevented from getting on with their lives, working or enjoying their children and grandchildren. I ask the Chancellor to stick with that and clear the backlog.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend of course knows about this particularly well from his own experience, and he is right. One of the implications of the lockdown and what we have done in the past is that we have this backlog now. He rightly says that it makes a difference to people’s day-to-day quality of life, which is why we have provided £3 billion, of which £1 billion is to tackle exactly that elective backlog. It will enable 1 million more scans and treatments to happen, and, as he says, it is something we should stick with.

Kirsten Oswald: More than 1 million 1950s-born WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women remain in the workforce, including in front-facing roles. Many had planned to retire but cannot do so because the Chancellor’s Government hit them with a lengthy delay in accessing their pensions. WASPI women have asked me why the Chancellor cannot sort out their pensions, allowing them to retire and freeing up their jobs for others. That would be a win-win for the Chancellor and WASPI women, so will he look to do it?

Rishi Sunak: The case has been settled in the courts and there is not much further I can add, but today we have announced an uplift of 2.5% for 12 million pensioners on the state pension, which I know will make a difference to many.

Ben Everitt: I am sure the Chancellor shares my vision that Milton Keynes and the wider Thames valley can be the silicon valley of Europe. We know that 88% of UK companies are currently experiencing a lack of digital skills, and that this is costing our economy £63 billion a year. May I therefore ask whether the proposal for a brand new STEM-focused science and digital technology university in Milton Keynes would be eligible to apply for funding from the new £4 billion pot for levelling up?

Rishi Sunak: We will publish further details on how the levelling-up fund will work in due course. It is for those smaller, deliverable, everyday infrastructure projects that I have talked about. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion technology, innovation and digital  adoption by small and medium-sized enterprises. He will be pleased to know that the spending review confirms just over £50 million to support the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to deliver productivity-enhancing programmes for SMEs. I think that one of those does involve the use of digital technology, in which the UK lags behind its peers.

Yvette Cooper: We know that families are really struggling right now. The Bank of England has said that the inflation forecast next year is 2%. Can the Chancellor guarantee that the 2.1 million public sector workers he referred to will not face a real-terms pay cut next year? Will he also explain why on earth he is still going ahead with the appalling £1,000 cut in universal credit, which will hit millions of families across the country at this incredibly difficult time?

Rishi Sunak: Those in the public sector who earn less than £24,000, which is the UK national median wage, will receive a fixed increase of at least £250. That is 2.1 million people—38% of the workforce. [Interruption.] Well, it will depend on each worker’s exact salary, but there will be a fixed increase of £250 for all of those 2 million workers.

Nigel Mills: I welcome much of the Chancellor’s statement, and look forward to sending him the bid for the Ripley-Codnor bypass. Is he able to offer any encouragement to the supply chain of the hospitality industry? He is supporting the restaurants and pubs that are closed, but not the important businesses that supply them and also cannot trade because they have no customers to sell to.

Rishi Sunak: Obviously those businesses will be able to use the generous terms of the furlough scheme for their staff through the winter period. The more than £1 billion of funding that we made available to local authorities before the start of the latest national restrictions was also to support businesses and local economies in the way that authorities saw fit throughout the winter period. That funding is available at a local level, perhaps to do some of the things that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mick Whitley: The Chancellor has promised the British people a green jobs revolution, but the UK is fast falling behind countries like France and Germany. We need investment in the jobs of the future now. What immediate steps will the Chancellor be taking to support green infrastructure projects such as offshore wind and the Mersey tidal projects, and green jobs on Merseyside?

Rishi Sunak: I do not believe that we are behind France and Germany. We are phasing out internal combustion engine vehicles 10 years before France, and we are phasing out coal 13 years before Germany. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan will support up to a quarter of a million green jobs, building on the progress that we have made by being the country that has decarbonised the fastest out of all major economies.

Anthony Browne: My constituency is home to the global headquarters of AstraZeneca, the private sector company that has committed  to producing, on a not-for-profit basis, the so-called Oxford vaccine—not just for the British population, but for developing countries around the world. It is doing that through Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, of which the UK, as the Chancellor said earlier, is the biggest financial supporter. The coronavirus pandemic is the biggest crisis facing the world, and the UK is in a leading position in tackling it. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the spending review, the UK will continue to be able to play that leading role against the pandemic?

Rishi Sunak: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He highlights a perfect example of this country making an enormous difference to millions of people around the world, not just with our aid budget but through the quality of our research and then our desire to find commercial partners who will bring that life-saving treatment to millions of people at cost. It is a fantastic example, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight it.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: It was frankly opprobrious that there was nothing today to help the 3 million people excluded from Government support schemes. They are desperate, they are struggling, and some have even taken their own lives. Will the Chancellor tell me whether we are to assume that, after eight months without any change in policy, he deems it politically expedient to exclude these people, because they just do not matter?

Rishi Sunak: I am sure the hon. Lady heard the answer to the previous question on this issue. She keeps mentioning this 3 million figure without giving an explanation of whether she agrees that 1.5 million of those people should be included, given that they make the majority of their earnings from employment and are eligible to be furloughed. Indeed, that approach was supported by all trade organisations at the time when the scheme was launched.

Gary Sambrook: Fifteen years after the MG Rover collapse, there is still 150 acres of unused land in Longbridge that could be used to provide much-needed jobs locally. Will the Chancellor support my campaign, along with Mayor Andy Street, to make sure that Longbridge is at the top of the list when it comes to levelling-up and that we have those jobs right across Northfield?

Rishi Sunak: That sounds like an excellent idea. I hope that the £400 million brownfield fund, which is part of our housing fund, could be of help. I know that Mayor Andy Street has spoken to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about how best he can access the brownfield fund, and this sounds like exactly the kind of project that it is designed to help.

Emma Lewell-Buck: The Chancellor has repeatedly said that he does not recognise them, but today 3 million taxpayers—including many of my constituents—who have been excluded from any support at all will have been in anguish waiting for his statement. Far from protecting lives and livelihoods, he has let them down yet again. Their income is down to zero, they are losing their homes and unable to feed their families and—again—some have even taken their  own lives. Is it that the Chancellor does not understand the heartache and hopelessness of poverty? Or is it simply that he just does not care?

Rishi Sunak: Anyone in the circumstances described by the hon. Lady would surely be eligible for support through universal credit, which can provide, depending on the circumstances, somewhere between £1,500 and £1,800 per family per month to help to support them if that is what they need. She talks about the self-employed as if perhaps they are not also people who benefit from better hospitals, better schools, better local infrastructure and safer streets. That is what this spending review delivers, and it will benefit everybody in the United Kingdom in that way.

Marco Longhi: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and strongly applaud the Government’s commitment to fund the NHS with investment not only in hospitals, such as the £3 million for the A&E at Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley, but in diagnostic equipment, as well as for more nurses and GP appointments. Will he outline how these commitments help the Conservative party to meet its manifesto commitment to deliver stronger public services, such as through 50,000 more nurses?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: not only are we maintaining our commitment to the NHS’s five-year long-term settlement, but we are providing additional funds, with £3 billion for covid recovery this year, and also providing fully the extra funding required to deliver on the commitments to 50,000 more nurses, 50 million more GP appointments and, indeed, 40 new hospitals.

Rushanara Ali: The British people have faced an incredibly difficult year, with covid and the resulting economic crisis. We then have the looming prospect of either a no-deal Brexit or a minimalist one that will be very disruptive for businesses. The OBR has forecast a 5.2% loss of potential GDP over the next 15 years, while the Governor of the Bank of England has said that with a no-deal Brexit we could see a situation that is two to three times as bad. How much more economic carnage and unemployment should the British people expect, with these two scenarios on top of coronavirus and its impacts?

Rishi Sunak: All I would say is that our teams are hard at work, and I am very hopeful that we can reach a constructive agreement with our European friends and partners. Our wishes in this negotiation have always been consistent and transparent and are based entirely on the precedent of what other countries have achieved with the EU, so I am very much hopeful that, with good work and a constructive attitude, we can get there.

Sir David Amess: In what must be the most challenging circumstances ever to deliver a spending review, I welcome the Restart scheme to help the unemployed. Last year, £500 million was announced to help youth services, and Southend YMCA greatly benefited from that. Will the Chancellor recommit to that £500 million, and will he set out a timeframe in which that can be delivered over the next five years?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of youth services. I am not entirely sure exactly which bit he refers to, but I am happy to talk to him further about it. He will see in today’s spending review that the National Citizen Service is still there and we have provided more funding for capital projects for youth organisations, but I will happily pick up the specific case he mentioned separately.

Kevin Hollinrake: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the levelling-up fund. May I make an immediate representation for dualling of the A64 in my constituency? I also welcome the changes to the Green Book. Will he take a similar look at the housing infrastructure fund, which also has a built-in bias towards spending in London and the south-east?

Rishi Sunak: I know that this is an area that my hon. Friend knows particularly well, so I am very happy to take him up on that suggestion and discuss his concerns with the Housing Secretary. I thank him for bringing it to my attention.

Tim Farron: There are some positives for the NHS in the Chancellor’s statement, but it does feel like there is a blind spot: in the detailed documents, as far as I can tell, there is only one reference to cancer. Bear in mind that clinicians estimate that we will unnecessarily lose 60,000 years to cancer deaths during this time, and that it may take five years for the NHS to catch up with the colossal cancer backlog. There is no reference in the Chancellor’s statement to the urgent investment in radiotherapy or other treatment mechanisms that is necessary to catch up with cancer. Will he think again? Will he meet me and a cross-party group of MPs, clinicians and patients living with cancer, so that he can think again, act now and save lives?

Rishi Sunak: Of course, it will be for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to do the detailed allocation of this budget, but I would point to the £3 billion for covid recovery, £1 billion of which is to help tackle the backlog of elective surgery and of screening and diagnostics, which I think will help. We have also provided £325 million to invest in new diagnostic machines, replacing about two thirds of ageing machines, which presumably helps with referrals and identification of cancer, but of course the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will be the best person to discuss the exact allocation of the increased NHS budget.

Andy Carter: I praise the measured and sensible way that the Chancellor has approached this spending review, and I welcome in particular the infrastructure fund. With levelling up in the north of England a real priority, I look forward to discussing more projects for Warrington South with him. I am particularly pleased to see that those working in the lowest-paid public sector jobs will get a pay increase, but can he confirm that the extra police officers promised for Cheshire will be delivered so that we can tackle antisocial behaviour and protect our communities from the dreadful impact of county lines drug gangs?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of safer streets. I am pleased to tell him that this spending review makes available £400 million  more for the Home Office and local policing to make sure that we can recruit an additional 6,000 police officers next year, on top of the 6,000 this year, in order to make great progress on our way to 20,000 by 2023.

Matt Vickers: My right hon. Friend has had to make some tough decisions on issues such as foreign aid, but can he assure me that by doing that, he will be able to focus on domestic priorities and a levelling-up agenda that can do so much for so many in Teesside?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This spending review is about focusing on the priorities of our constituents. I am sure that he and his constituents will be pleased to know that we have made £3 million available today for the Tees Valley hydrogen transport hub. Teesside is at the heart of our hydrogen revolution, bringing new jobs, attracting investment and driving growth in his local area. That is an example of the kind of local priority that we can now fund, having made these tough decisions.

Hilary Benn: The Chancellor said that he wants to invest in the places that we call home, but the homes of thousands of leaseholders are currently worthless fire risks because of the cladding scandal that they did not cause. He will be well aware that the £1.6 billion that he has already allocated is nowhere near enough to make all those homes safe again. The leaseholders do not have the money and, as far as I can tell from the Blue Book, not a single additional penny has been allocated. How much longer will my constituents have to wait before they can once again call the place in which they live a home?

Rishi Sunak: We have made available £1.6 billion, which means that, at this moment, 80% of high-rise buildings with aluminium composite material cladding have work under way or complete. That number is likely to rise to 100% by the end of the year.
With regard to people who are unable to move, I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the issue with the EWS1 certificates. The Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), made a statement on that recently, but the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that £700,000 was made available to help more assessors to qualify to undertake those assessments. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is in conversations with UK Finance and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to ensure that the use or demand of those certificates is appropriate and proportionate to the needs of the situation.

Julian Sturdy: I understand that my right hon. Friend has had to make some difficult decisions as we seek to rebuild our economy in the months ahead. I am delighted to hear his commitment to investment in infrastructure, but can he set out what that means for the north, in particular York and north Yorkshire? What benefits will it bring to my constituents?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right that it is about making difficult decisions so that we can prioritise the things that our constituents want us to. In his area, he  will be pleased that there has been a success in accessing the new stations fund for Haxby station. That is an example of the Government delivering on our promises and trying to find ways to improve local transport infrastructure in his local area to drive growth and opportunity. We will relentlessly focus on those types of priorities.

Barry Sheerman: I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether we can have the new infrastructure bank in Yorkshire, in particular in Huddersfield. Is he sure that he has paid enough attention to the tremendous challenge of young people’s unemployment and young people who want to get into a job and be trained? Is the programme that he announced today sufficient to train a whole new generation of young people as green apprentices?

Rishi Sunak: I would, of course, be sympathetic to the idea of putting the bank in Yorkshire, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but he was slightly beaten to the punch over the weekend by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who made a pitch for Bradford. In any case, I will happily hear his thoughts.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the focus on young people. The new Restart programme will be able to help a million people who have been unemployed for over a year. Before that happens, we have the kickstart programme that will benefit a quarter of a million young people—or more if it is successful. He talked about apprenticeships. Rightly, we have increased the cash bonus to businesses to £3,000 for them to take on a fresh new young apprentice, because he is right that that is where our focus should be.

Jane Stevenson: I thank the Chancellor for the range of measures to support those on low incomes and to protect the most vulnerable, whether that is through an uplift to cash for local authorities to identify and support vulnerable families, or through the holiday activities and food programme and an uplift to the Healthy Start programme. Levelling up is crucial to a seat such as Wolverhampton North-East. Can he reassure my constituents that the Government will continue to prioritise job creation, investment and other opportunities for them?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are committed to spreading opportunity across the country, especially in places where people feel they have not had the same fair crack of the whip. Our levelling up fund is designed to correct that. Today, her local area will be benefiting from discounted funding from the Public Works Loan Board to help with local infrastructure projects. That is a symbol of our commitment to her area and her constituents.

Bill Esterson: The Chancellor said that my hon. Friends were wrong about the number of working people excluded from financial support. It is the freelancers and the self-employed who have not had any support who think that he is wrong. In the Liverpool city region, the Mayor, Steve Rotheram, has found a package to support some of the people who have been excluded. When will the Chancellor step up, support Steve Rotheram, Andy Burnham and the other Labour leaders in local government, and put a support package  together? He has to admit that these people have not qualified for furlough, self-employed support or business grants, and most of them are not eligible for universal credit. When is he going to end this burning injustice?

Rishi Sunak: Some £1 billion has been provided to local authorities across the country to support their businesses and local economies as they see fit. That funding has, of course, been made available to the hon. Gentleman’s local authority. If that is how it chooses to use the funding, that is up to the local authority. We have provided a range of different support, whether loans, access to our more generous welfare system or mortgage holidays that, in the end, one in six mortgage holders used. Those are all ways by which we have tried to do our best to provide support to the largest number of people possible.

Robert Largan: I wholeheartedly welcome the announcement that doctors, nurses and NHS workers will be getting a pay increase. This crisis has shown that we desperately need to invest in our urgent care capacity. That is why I have been campaigning for new urgent care centres for both Tameside Hospital and Stepping Hill Hospital. Will the Chancellor confirm that the Government remain 100% committed to the NHS hospital upgrade programme?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On top of the existing in-year funding we have provided to deal with winter pressures for A&E, the spending review confirms £3.7 billion of funding over the next few years to deliver both the 40 new hospitals we have talked about and 70 hospital upgrades. Rest assured; we remain completely committed to this programme.

Carla Lockhart: I thank the Chancellor for his statement and welcome the additional financial support for the Northern Ireland Executive. I also look forward to the detail of the pay rise for nurses, doctors and healthcare workers, and how Northern Ireland healthcare professionals can benefit. In my constituency of Upper Bann, the private sector has been absolutely devastated by covid-19. Had it not been for the support provided by him, many businesses would be closed. What will the Chancellor do to ensure that the private sector recovery is supported across the United Kingdom, and will he undertake to show his clear commitment to a UK-wide recovery by visiting my constituency, when restrictions permit, to meet businesses who want to thank him and be part of our national economic recovery?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments. She is right about the importance of our businesses, especially our small and medium-sized businesses, in helping to drive our recovery. We have provided cash grant support to those most impacted by the restrictions and that extra funding comes to Northern Ireland. On a UK-wide basis, we have provided tax cuts, grants, loans and other measures that she will be aware of. She can rest assured that I will keep all that in my mind as we think about how to exit the crisis. I look forward to my first visit as Chancellor, hopefully, to Northern Ireland in the near future.

Angela Richardson: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement this afternoon. He will know that affordable housing is needed in my constituency, but that development is constrained by green belt, which we are rightly enhancing and protecting as a manifesto commitment. Therefore, will he outline what fiscal steps he is taking to support councils like mine to regenerate brownfield sites?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of going to brownfield first. Today’s spending review makes available an additional £100 million for non-mayoral combined authorities to access remediation funding. My right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary will be able to talk to her in more detail about that, but it is exactly the kind of thing that I think could make a difference in her constituency.

Drew Hendry: By introducing the emergency measure to increase universal credit by £20 per week, the Chancellor was acknowledging what many people have known for years: universal credit is simply not enough to live on. If that was the case during the pandemic, why will he not commit to retaining this uplift permanently?

Rishi Sunak: We put in place a range of temporary measures because we were dealing with an unprecedented crisis. We are now working our way through that crisis, and the future looks considerably brighter than it did in March, not least because of the medical advancements and our ability to do improved testing, so we can look forward. We keep everything under review. The uplift lasts all the way to the spring. As we get to the spring and have more clarity about the future path of our economy and restrictions, we will of course be mindful of how to support and protect those who are most vulnerable in our society.

Martin Vickers: While I share some of the concerns expressed by colleagues about the aid budget, I think that if we are to continue asking our constituents to make sacrifices, this temporary move is the right one. Can the Chancellor give an assurance that the Greater Grimsby town deal, which is of great benefit to my constituency, will continue to be funded? He is aware from a note I gave him last week that modest support for LNER would restore our direct rail service to London, and I hope he can provide that.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is right about my need to make difficult decisions and tough choices so that we can prioritise the things that he talked about. I believe that his local area has received some seed funding to examine proposals for the south Humber line, which I hope will make a difference to his constituents. I hope that he and I can have a productive conversation about our levelling-up fund, as we figure out how best to support the wonderful town of Grimsby with its future ambitions.

Rachel Hopkins: It is irresponsible to pit public sector and private sector workers against one another in the race to the bottom on wages, especially when key workers across both sectors kept us going through the pandemic. Notwithstanding the small amount given to low-paid workers, who frankly deserve better,  this pay freeze for civil servants will also freeze any meaningful action on tackling the gender pay gap in the civil service, which is 12%. Will the Chancellor outline what discussions he has had with the Cabinet Office about eradicating the gender pay gap in Departments?

Rishi Sunak: For the record, no one is trying to pit anyone against anyone else. This is simply about doing what is fair for the country. It is the right decision to make. It is a difficult decision, but we have taken a targeted approach to protect those on lower incomes and those in the NHS, ensuring that a majority of public servants will receive an increase in their pay next year. I would be happy to go away and look at the gender pay gap in the civil service and ensure that we are making good progress on eliminating it.

Mike Wood: We all want to see people’s wages go up again after the pandemic, and my right hon. Friend’s statement provides a strong foundation for securing that. At a time when many workers in the private sector face cuts or job losses, I can understand why it is necessary to pause public sector pay rises, other than those for frontline NHS workers and those earning less than the national average. Will he join me in urging the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to ensure that that freeze also extends to the salaries of Members of Parliament?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and the way he framed it was spot on. He will be reassured to know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has written to IPSA on behalf of the Government, the Prime Minister and I to express our views on the situation, to inform it about the pay policy that we have put in place in the public sector and to urge it to take account of that when it sets pay policy. Of course, it is an independent body, but I hope very much that it will look at what we are doing.

Vicky Foxcroft: The Youth Violence Commission report, published earlier this year, highlighted the importance of high-quality youth services provision, yet in a recent written response to the report, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), made no mention of the youth investment fund, and neither did the Chancellor today. Indeed, when the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) asked about it, the Chancellor did not seem to know what he was on about. Does this mean that the promised and already delayed £500 million has been shelved?

Rishi Sunak: No, it has not been shelved, and I can he tell the hon. Lady that there is extra funding in this spending review for youth services. There is an amount of money for extra capital projects for youth clubs and, of course, funding for the National Citizen Service. More generally, the Government will review their approach to all youth services later this spring, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set out the details in due course.

Andrew Jones: I welcome the focus on infrastructure in the statement. As my right hon. Friend knows, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on infrastructure, and I can tell  him that the industry has been looking for the certainty that he is providing today. Does he agree that that certainty will allow the industry to plan better and, through that, to deliver better value and develop skills programmes, including apprenticeship programmes?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is because of that multi-year certainty, particularly on the capital side, that we can deliver projects more efficiently, faster and at lower cost. That certainty also helps the supply chain to take on new apprentices—helped, indeed, by our apprenticeship bonus as well. He is absolutely right to say that we must train the next generation and create jobs as we deliver this infrastructure, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Toby Perkins: Britain’s publicans and the wider hospitality trade are facing a catastrophic Christmas. The Government’s mishandling of coronavirus, the lack of evidence behind their policies, particularly on pubs, and the lack of a financial package to support pubs after the second lockdown will mean that many of them never open their doors again. Rather than getting to his feet and congratulating them on what they did in the first lockdown, will the Chancellor actually give Britain’s publicans some kind of sense that a package is coming that might see them through the winter?

Rishi Sunak: The reason I talk about the things that we have done is that they last all the way through the winter to next spring, whether it is the VAT cut or the business rates holiday. I have consistently come to this Dispatch Box to support the hospitality industry. Many times I have been accused of doing the wrong thing by Opposition Members, but the local restrictions grants that we put in place will last through the winter, which means that if a pub is closed, it will receive up to £3,000 per month. When we look at the average rateable value of a pub in England, we see that the vast majority of small and medium-sized pubs will have their rent covered by that. Of course, they can furlough their staff as well, and those pubs operating in tier 2 areas under restrictions will still get a grant worth 70% of that value. Of course we are trying to do what we can to support the hospitality sector. I have done that since the beginning of this crisis, and I will keep doing so.

Nickie Aiken: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today and on his stamina, as mine will be the 80th question he has answered so far this afternoon. Rough sleeping and tackling the causes of rough sleeping are subjects close to my heart. Sadly, in my constituency, we see more rough sleepers than in any other constituency in the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that today’s statement will provide financial support so that we can focus on the Government’s priority to end rough sleeping by 2024?

Rishi Sunak: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think £254 million has been made available to local authorities to help them to end rough sleeping. That is a 60% increase in cash terms on the money available this year. She is absolutely right to say that this is something we must end, and I know that the funding will make an enormous difference in her constituency. I know this is an issue that she cares passionately about.

Alan Brown: Braehead Foods is a large employer in my constituency that supplies top-quality produce all over the United Kingdom. Furlough has been welcome for the company, but it needs additional support to cover fixed overheads while borrowing is maxed out and orders are almost non-existent. Will the Chancellor please reconsider past requests from myself and the Federation of Wholesale Distributors to provide a grant or rates relief system that can be replicated in Scotland for UK food wholesalers such as Braehead that are above the £51,000 business rates threshold, so that they can stay afloat and play their part in the post-covid economic recovery?

Rishi Sunak: Business rates are, of course, a devolved competency, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman can talk to the Scottish Government about their plans. They will receive £2.4 billion of Barnett consequentials as a result of what we are doing this year, and they could choose to use some of that funding to provide support in the way that he asks.

Bim Afolami: Earlier this week, I spoke to many people and companies— training providers and others—in my constituency about apprenticeships, and how we need to improve the system and make it more flexible. Will the Chancellor set out in further detail what the measures in this spending review will do to help businesses, training providers and young people get the apprenticeships they deserve?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend knows this well, from his own business experience, and he is absolutely right. What businesses have been asking for is more flexibility on how levy funds are used. I am pleased that we can deliver that today. It means businesses can transfer their unspent levy funds down the supply chain easily, in bulk, to small and medium-sized companies. We are going to create a matching service for that to happen, and we are also going to allow employers, in certain industries at first, to front-load some of their training funding, which is what they also wanted. Those obviously will be funded by the Government—all those changes that happen as a result of our getting less in the levy funding—but we think they are the right thing to do. They will support business and support apprenticeships, and he is right to raise it.

James Wild: The focus on the NHS and infrastructure is welcome. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn is on the frontline of dealing with covid, and it is 40 years old but was built to last only 30 years. Will my right hon. Friend look seriously at the compelling case for QEH to be one of the eight additional hospitals to be built on top of the 40 announced today?

Rishi Sunak: I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend about the plans and the ambitions he has for his local hospital. The Secretary of State for Health will also be interested. My hon. Friend will know how committed we all are to improving our hospitals and having new ones across the UK. There is funding for that today, but I am happy to discuss it further.

Beth Winter: In Wales, aerospace generates £1.47 billion in GVA for the Welsh economy. Since the pandemic, GE Aviation, which employs  200 of my constituents, has suffered 600 job losses, with future job losses likely. The sector faces a very uncertain future, which will have a devastating impact on our communities. These highly skilled workers have transferable skills. With the Chancellor’s stated interest in funding the development of green initiatives, will he consider a sector-specific package to support such a development for my constituents?

Rishi Sunak: I know from my conversations with the industry that one of the things it was very keen to see was an extension of our job support and furlough schemes, which is something we have been able to provide, and I know that will make a difference in preserving those valuable skill matches the hon. Member talked about. She will also know that there is an existing research and development park that the Department for Business runs, where it works with the aerospace industry to provide access. Some of the new R&D we have put aside for our net zero transition will also help because it is designed for reducing emissions and finding new ways in the transportation sector.

William Wragg: As somebody who campaigns to protect green-belt land, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s additional investment in prioritising brownfield developments. His changes to the Green Book will also benefit the north-west in relation to infrastructure investment. Will he say more about what he can do to incentivise business growth in the north of England, which will bring jobs and, importantly, tax revenue to fund many of the spending commitments he has announced today?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although not part of the spending review, just very recently announced is the extension to the annual investment allowance, which was due to expire at the end of this year. This allows small and medium-sized companies to write off, in full, investments of up to £1 million, so that is a tax break that we are extending into next year. I know that it will be warmly welcomed by businesses in his constituency, and it will allow them to invest in their growth in a tax-advantaged way.

Peter Kyle: Brighton and Hove has double the national average number of people renting their homes, yet the cost of rental in Brighton and Hove is the same as in central London. I am hearing from an alarming number of people who are struggling to pay their rent. They are either running businesses or they are in employment that is not covering the bills. They are running out of savings, and soon they will be destitute. Can the Chancellor say—he did not say anything about rental homes in his statement—what assistance can be given to making sure that people can stay in their homes till the end of this crisis and then start earning money again?

Rishi Sunak: What I can say is that the local housing allowance uplift that we put in place this year will be maintained into next year—the £1 billion—and I know that is of benefit to about 1 million households, at about £600 each. That is the main announcement today, but I would be very happy to hear if there are further things. The hon. Member will know about our £12 billion affordable homes programme, which is designed to build 180,000 affordable homes over the coming years as well.

Harriett Baldwin: It is almost exactly a year since we launched our manifesto, and today’s sobering statement has laid bare the impact that the pandemic has had on the nation’s finances and the difficult choices the Chancellor is having to make. He has done well to keep manifesto pledges on track, but I feel I need to make it clear that I personally feel ashamed that the only manifesto pledge we are breaking today is our promise to the world’s poorest.

Rishi Sunak: I know that this is a topic about which my hon. Friend feels passionately, and rightly so. As she will have heard me say, we do this with a heavy heart. It enables us to make progress on our other priorities, and it is indeed temporary. We intend to return to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow.

Margaret Ferrier: According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, public sector pay is now at its lowest level in decades relative to that in the private sector. Although the announcement of a pay rise for NHS workers is welcome, other public sector workers will be put in even greater financial insecurity by the pay freeze. Does the Chancellor not feel that, in the context of the great work those people are doing in this pandemic, the public sector pay cap is a dramatic failure to show our appreciation for all their hard work?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Lady mentioned the relative pay premium. It is worth bearing in mind that there still is a pay premium. The latest numbers we have, from 2019, show a 7% pay premium between public and private sector wages. That premium will without doubt have been exacerbated by the growing disparity in public-private sector wages that we are seeing this year. So in the interests of fairness and of protecting public sector jobs, I think it is right that we have taken a targeted approach and prioritised pay rises for those on lower incomes and in the NHS.

Tom Hunt: I very much welcome the £4 billion levelling-up fund, but it cannot just be about the north and the midlands. Ipswich will need to be part of the mix as well. I also welcome the over £7 billion extra funding for schools, but I am very passionate about special educational needs provision, as the Chancellor will know, and I just wanted assurances from him. We are talking about this extra investment and the extra 500 schools in the next decade. That must include providing first-class special educational needs provision, which does cost a lot but is absolutely worth it.

Rishi Sunak: I know about my hon. Friend’s passion for this subject and I am pleased to be able to tell him that £300 million has been allocated for new school places for children with special educational needs and disabilities, which is, I think, about four times as much as was provided to local authorities a year ago.

Meg Hillier: We have heard very much a smoke and mirrors statement today, with the Chancellor repeatedly saying that there is more cash year on year than in the last decade. Well, that is easy to say after 10 years of austerity and cuts. But I want to focus particularly on the local government settlement, which is a static settlement  on the departmental expenditure limit but has this mysterious phrase, “core spending power”, which has become commonplace now in Government and includes the option to increase council tax. Council tax is a regressive tax. There are some councils with a very low council tax base where the percentage increase will mean very little money into the coffers. Even if they were to go down that route, how is he going to ensure, in his levelling-up agenda, that they do not lose out because they have a lower council tax base?

Rishi Sunak: As a former local government Minister, which was my first job, I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that there is nothing smoke and mirrors about core spending power. It is the metric on which the local government finance settlement is done each year and it is the main metric on which it is focused. It is going up 4.5%, which is a very high level compared with that in any of the last years. She is right about how council tax works, which is why we have put in an additional £300 million of grant on top of the existing grant. Part of that is used for equalisation and the exact way that that works is a matter for MHCLG. As is always the case, we have an equalisation element to the grant to deal with the specific issue she raises.

Thomas Tugendhat: First, may I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who has the most extraordinarily difficult job in juggling the nation’s finances at this time?I pay tribute to him for his investment in levelling up, and I also pay tribute to his focus on business, which, after all, is going to pay for all the money that he has just spent. However, will he perhaps tell me a bit about the aid budget? I have noticed 20 basis points moving from aid into defence. It is a very welcome defence budget, certainly, but at a time when aid has never been more needed in extending the perimeter of our public health to countries where the covid crisis would otherwise run wild, surely this is not exactly the right moment to be reducing those defences.
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, to which he has made reference this afternoon, clearly gives him the opportunity to opt out of the 0.7% target according to three different metrics, all of which are covered by the covid crisis? He can therefore do his reduction, if he feels it is necessary, with no change in the law whatever.

Rishi Sunak: I am thankful to my hon. Friend for his comments and, indeed, the constructive conversations I have had with him on our aid budget, our defence budget and, more generally, our place in the world, which he rightly champions, and he does a very good job at that. He is right that we should look holistically at this, and he made a good argument for why we play a role, particularly with providing security through our defence budget to many places. He is also right about the 2015 Act and the so-called ouster provision contained within it, but given that we cannot predict with sufficient certainty when exactly the current fiscal circumstances will have improved and given our need to plan accordingly, we do intend to look at bringing forward appropriate legislation in due course. However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement tomorrow and can answer the question in more detail.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I admire my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s stamina in answering well over 90 questions? I also warmly welcome his statement this afternoon and in particular the £100 billion he announced on infrastructure spending, which includes some vital projects in my constituency, notably the levelling-up fund and the feasibility study for the Cirencester light railway, the reconfirmation of the funding for the A417 and, above all, the extra funding to improve gigabit broadband, which is an issue my rural constituency suffers from. Will he confirm that very hard-hit economies, such as Gloucestershire’s, will benefit from this infrastructure funding, and that it will help speed up a strong recovery?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words in support. He is absolutely right: we want to ensure that this record investment in infrastructure brings tangible benefits to our constituents wherever they live, whether that is in the rural south-west or a town up in the north-east. All the people of this country should see measurable improvement in the quality of their lives and see the opportunities that they can seize ahead of them. That is something that the Government will focus relentlessly on and intend to deliver.

Nigel Evans: It is not often that I get to bring a smile to the Chancellor’s face, but that is it. I thank him for his statement today and answering the questions. He was on his feet from 12.45, which is over two and a half hours. I am extremely grateful, as I am sure is the entire House of Commons.
I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the motion relating to the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020. The Ayes were 354 and the Noes were 261, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
We will now suspend for a brief period for the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes and the safe departure and entrance of Members of Parliament.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order 4 June)
Sitting suspended

Driving Offences (Amendment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Gerald Jones: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide that dangerous and careless, or inconsiderate, driving offences may be committed in places other than roads and other public places; and for connected purposes.
In August 2017, a 22-month-old girl, Pearl Melody Black from my constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, was tragically killed while walking with her father and brother. Pearl was killed by an unoccupied vehicle that rolled from a private drive in Merthyr Tydfil on to a highway and down a hill, crashing into a wall that subsequently crushed her and injured her father and brother. In the months after the incident, officers from the serious collision unit of South Wales police worked tirelessly in putting a case together to provide justice for the family. In short, all tests concluded that the car was mechanically sound and that it had rolled because the handbrake was not fully engaged and the automatic transmission was not fully placed into “park” mode.
The case was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service in March 2018 and was worked on by the London office as well as an independent QC hired by the CPS to consult. Everyone was hopeful of a conviction under the death by dangerous driving category, and the CPS also looked into other possible options. In June 2018, however, the CPS stated that it was unable to send the case to court as a glitch in the law states that the vehicle must have started its journey on a public road to make a prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Even though Pearl was killed on a public road, the fact that the vehicle started its descent from a private drive has meant that prosecution was not possible. The coroner stated that the vehicle was in fact well maintained and it seemed that the issue was very much driver operation. The inquest heard that the handbrake had not been fully applied in the “park” mode.
Over the past two years, I have been meeting Pearl’s parents, Gemma and Paul, who I know will be watching me present this Bill today, to look at what could be done to change the legislation so that other families do not face this kind of injustice in future. The inquest into Pearl’s death was heard in October 2018 and the outcome was “accident”. However, with the support of South Wales police and the CPS, Pearl’s parents sought a change in the law, and are continuing to do so, to stop other families being in a similar situation of not being able to secure justice, due to a legal loophole, following such a tragic and completely preventable incident as this. As Gemma and Paul acknowledge, it will not help to bring justice for Pearl, as legislation is not retrospective, but if this law can be changed to prevent anyone else from suffering this injustice again, that may provide some comfort.
Having spoken to the Public Bill Office and the Private Bill Office and held meetings with Government Ministers, I appreciate that there is no current major transport Bill that could provide a vehicle for this change. I therefore hope to bring in this Bill to at least  allow us to start making some progress. I hope that the Government will also look at the Bill carefully to see if it can be included in any future Government legislation.
It is wholly wrong that in such cases, including those as tragic as that which I have outlined, justice cannot be achieved. There is no conviction simply because the land on which it takes place is not classified as public.
Pearl’s case, however, is sadly by no means an isolated one. In 2017, the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) raised the case of a tragic accident where a young boy was killed by a tractor, the driver of which was more than twice over the legal limit for driving. What was very likely to have otherwise been a prosecution for death by dangerous driving with a sentence of a number of years’ imprisonment was, in fact, a prison sentence of little over a year and prosecuted only under health and safety legislation. Again, that awful and preventable tragedy saw no real justice because it took place on private, rather than public, land.
In his response to the debate, the Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), acknowledged that an overarching change in the law to cover driving offences occurring on private land in general would be a very significant and difficult piece of legislation, due to the wide-ranging nature of land that comes under the definition of “private”, and complications around other classifications of private land, such as land being used for military, commercial and other official purposes, and exemptions from legal proceedings for offences committed as a result.
I have discussed the difficulty of legislating broadly for such matters in correspondence and meetings with Ministers over the past two years. While I appreciate that that remains the case, we can at the very least start to look at changing the law with more focused legislation to enable driving offences that occur on private land adjoining public land to be prosecuted. That would apply to cases like the death of my constituents’ daughter, Pearl, and another similar case brought to the House three years ago by another Member to which I have referred.
If the law were changed in relation to driving offences occurring on private land adjoining public land, it would be a very powerful deterrent to road users showing carelessness as well as to those who have no doubt exploited the current loophole in the law to avoid conviction when they have undoubtedly been at fault. People would be likely to take more care and pay more attention when driving or parking on private land close to public land in the knowledge that there could be serious consequences for careless or reckless behaviour.
There will, of course, always be a degree of human error present in such situations, but this Bill and the threat of legal charges resulting from such carelessness or irresponsibility could make a real difference in helping to prevent accidents, as well as bringing to justice anyone who would have used the loophole to escape conviction or any kind of consequence.
There are a huge number of instances where private land adjoining public land is regularly used and potentially dangerous to those around, including residential driveways, schools and nurseries, supermarkets, shopping centres, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries, to name some of the most common. When we consider some of those examples, we can see that driving on that specific category of land can present a very high risk to people in everyday situations, especially children, the elderly and some of the most vulnerable among us.
I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that nobody who has suffered the loss of a loved one or had an accident or injury as a result of a driving offence should have to endure the injustice of seeing those responsible go free simply because of a loophole in the law. Prosecutions for driving offences and, indeed, any illegal action should be based on what happened, not where something happened. The legislation that I am hoping to take forward through this Bill would give people such as my constituents Gemma and Paul, and many others, the peace of mind that there are consequences for dangerous driving, no matter where it occurs, and help to prevent such needless and avoidable tragedies ever happening in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gerald Jones, Judith Cummins, Wayne David, Chris Evans, Carolyn Harris, Ben Lake, Jessica Morden, Alec Shelbrooke, Nick Smith and Jamie Stone present the Bill.
Gerald Jones accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January, and to be printed (Bill 219).

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under the Prison Act 1952 out of money so provided.—(Lucy Frazer.)

Independent Expert Panel

[Relevant document: House of Commons Commission, Members of the Independent Expert Panel: Nomination of Candidates, HC 998.]

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That:
(1) in accordance with Standing Order No. 150C (Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Members), the following be appointed as members of the Independent Expert Panel—
(a) Mrs Lisa Ball, Mrs Johanna Higgins, Sir Stephen Irwin and Professor Clare McGlynn for a period of 4 years, and
(b) Monica Daley, Miss Dale Simon, Sir Peter Thornton and Dr Matthew Vickers for a period of 6 years; and
(2) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (4) Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel), Sir Stephen Irwin be the Chair of that Panel.
It is a pleasure to open this debate on the appointment of the independent expert panel, which would provide important support to the work of the independent complaints and grievance scheme. The appointments that we debate today represent a significant next step in our collective efforts to ensure that Parliament has a culture that is respectful to all and where there is no place for bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct.
I want to emphasise that this panel is just one step. Although significant progress has been made on this agenda, none of us is under any illusion that to bring about the lasting change needed to our culture will not take painstaking work, tireless communication and myriad reinforcing actions by many over a considerable period.
The steps already undertaken are significant ones. They include, of course, the creation in 2018 of the ICGS itself and I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), and all those who worked with her to generate a consensus and set a way forward for the scheme.
The ICGS is now open to all members of the parliamentary community and, importantly, it has been broadened to include investigation of non-recent allegations and from those who have since left the parliamentary community. As set out in the ICGS’s annual report published last week, over the past year, the pool of investigators has been expanded so that more cases can be processed, including non-recent ones, and there has been the creation of a single helpline service to provide confidential and immediate advice, which includes a speciality independent sexual misconduct advisory service.
Recently, we have also seen the launch of the second of two planned independent reviews of the ICGS to ensure that consideration is given to how what is still a fledgling scheme can be strengthened. May I briefly again take the opportunity to encourage all members of the parliamentary community to participate in that review being undertaken by Alison Stanley. As I mentioned in business questions last week, an online survey seeking views will run until 4 December—it is a very simple survey; even I managed to do it. I ask Members please to take the survey if they can so that the widest range of views are captured and taken into account.
Looking beyond the ICGS, a new Member services team has also been established to provide human resources support to MPs and their staff, and I should add that more than 4,000 people in Parliament have now taken the Valuing Everyone training, which aims to demonstrate how to recognise and understand what harassment and sexual harassment mean in the workplace and how to tackle them.
Turning to the independent expert panel, it is important to note that the appointments that we are discussing today form part of our fulfilment of the key recommendations made by Dame Laura Cox in her 2018 report. Members will remember that Dame Laura made three fundamental recommendations: the first was that Parliament’s existing policies relating to bullying, harassment or sexual harassment should be abandoned; the second was that the ICGS should be accessible to those with complaints involving historical allegations. Both of those recommendations have been met. The final recommendation was that the process for determining complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment brought by House staff against Members of Parliament should be an entirely independent process in which Members of Parliament play no part. This is that independent process.
Under our current arrangements, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has the power to determine cases and impose sanctions up to a certain level of severity. More serious cases, including those where suspension or expulsion might be the resulting sanction, have been for the Standards Committee to determine.
In February this year, the House of Commons Commission considered a number of alternative approaches developed and presented by the staff team. The Commission agreed that the strongest option was that an expert panel, comprising an independent chairman and seven panel members, none of whom would be MPs, would determine ICGS cases, decide on sanctions and hear appeals by either party against the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ conclusions.
Dame Laura was consulted on the options considered by the Commission and was among those who supported the approach. Members will also remember that, in June, a motion was passed to establish the independent expert panel. The panel will determine complaints of bullying and harassment or sexual misconduct made under the ICGS. It will do so entirely independently of MPs. In cases where the IEP recommends the most extreme sanctions, such as suspension or expulsion of an MP, the House must approve the recommendation via a motion in this Chamber that will be taken without debate.
I have always been clear that the panel must be of the highest calibre collectively. Its members should provide considerable expertise in relevant fields, and they should do so under the leadership of a chairman of the standing equivalent to that of a High Court judge. I am therefore delighted that we have such a strong set of candidates to consider, and that recommended for the role of chairman is Sir Stephen Irwin, who was Lord Justice of Appeal from 2016 until his retirement last month, and was previously a High Court judge for a decade.

John Spellar: Can the Leader of the House tell us how much the chairman is going to be paid for this job?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Indeed, I can. Members of the independent expert panel, including the chairman, will be paid monthly in arrears a fee of £350 excluding value added tax for each half day spent by the panel member in the provision of their services. The amount claimed by each member will depend on the number of cases, and their individual contribution. It is expected that the annual report of the panel will include information on its costs. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman—I think this may be his next question—that panel members will not be part of a pension scheme for their services, but I am happy to take further interventions from him.

John Spellar: When I looked up the link from the report which referred to the advertisement for the job, it said that these jobs were going to be fixed term and full time, not per diem—if it is £350 for every half day, it is £700 a day as a full-time position—and that panel members would be part of the civil service pension scheme. This is slightly confusing. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could clarify the situation, because there is a difference between the advertisement and what he has just told the House.

Eddie Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to apply?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) would not have been eligible to apply because Members of Parliament cannot join—unless he decided to take the Chiltern Hundreds, but that would be a great loss to this House.
The fee is £350 per half day. The number of days or half days of work will be dependent on the number of cases, and the roles are not eligible for a civil service pension. Those are the terms under which people have agreed to serve. I do not know about the advertisement. I am afraid that I did not think of applying and therefore did not read the advertisement with the care that the right hon. Gentleman read it.

John Spellar: The right hon. Gentleman would not only be disqualified as a Member of Parliament; he referred to people being qualified, and it seems that all those who got the jobs happen to be lawyers, as though they are the only people in the whole country who are qualified to deal with these issues. I will come back to that in my speech.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I know that it is popular to be disparaging about lawyers, but it is sometimes unfair. The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) is a very distinguished lawyer herself, as is, as it happens, the Leader of the Opposition, so the Opposition have plenty of distinguished lawyers on their Benches. This process has to meet the requirements of natural justice. An understanding of the law and the application of law is a protection both for those who bring complaints and for those who are accused, so I am not surprised that lawyers make up a significant number of the applicants.

John Spellar: Again, the right hon. Gentleman seems to run slightly contrary to the advertisement for the positions, which says that panel members should have
“judicial, quasi-judicial, or adjudicating capacity, or bring expertise in a relevant policy area, such as employee or industrial relations or HR disciplinary processes.”
That implies that we would have people from industry, and probably also from the trade unions, who have experience of dealing with these matters practically, rather than exclusively lawyers.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that 134 completed applications were received —no doubt, from a variety of people. Of those applications, the ones that were seen to be the most suitable are those before the House, having been approved by the Commission. I think it is a distinguished panel—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman mutters that it is chumocracy; I do not want to give too much away, but the only member of the panel who claimed a friendship of any kind with any Member of Parliament said that he was on nodding terms with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, so if they are chums, they are not my chums, particularly, but they are very important and good people.

Bernard Jenkin: I entirely support the idea that we should bring on to the panel people who have juridical experience in the courts, and I commend my right hon. Friend and the Commission for appointing to the chair of this body an ex-High Court judge. That is exactly the kind of authority, independence and legitimacy that is required to give both those being scrutinised or disciplined in this process and those who are complaining through this process the confidence that it is being done properly.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Before the appointments were made, we had a number of representations from Members of this House saying that they would feel confident in the system if the chairman of the panel had the experience of a High Court judge, and Sir Stephen is a distinguished—

Kevan Jones: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Of course I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Kevan Jones: Like the Leader of the House, I have no problem with the chair being a lawyer, and I accept what has just been said, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) raised an interesting point. There is no one on the panel from an HR background in business, the trade union movement or the third sector. There are a number of individuals in the third sector who could have brought great expertise—not legal—to the panel, so I question how the consultants drew up the list in the first place. I would have thought that if they were looking for a broad spectrum of interests, lawyers are important, but so are others.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right hon. Gentleman is being unduly uncharitable towards lawyers. Lawyers can, in addition to being lawyers, have a wide range of experience in the way that they practised. Other than Members of Parliament, lawyers probably see more of life in its many and varied forms than many people in a lot of other professions. To broaden out from the people who often serve on quangos is not a bad idea for this type  of panel.
As I was saying, Sir Stephen has had a distinguished judicial career, which will be of great benefit to his role as chairman of the independent expert panel. The other candidates who have been recommended for appointment are also—I hope this will reassure the right hon. Members for Warley (John Spellar) and for North Durham (Mr Jones)—of an impressive standard. Miss Dale Simon, CBE, is a qualified barrister and a former director for public accountability and inclusion in the Crown Prosecution Service, which is an important role in a public body beyond the immediate application of the law.
Dr Matthew Vickers has been the chief ombudsman and chief executive of Ombudsman Services, and we know from our experience with constituents how valuable the ombudsman services are and what an understanding ombudsmen inevitably have of a variety of lives lived and experienced by our constituents.
Sir Peter Thornton, QC, is a retired senior circuit judge with almost a decade’s experience at the central criminal court, including hearing cases of serious sexual violence. I go back to the point that I made to the right hon. Member for North Durham: lawyers do see life in the raw, and probably the rawest is on the criminal circuit seeing cases of serious sexual violence. That is an experience that few people would have.

Kevan Jones: The Leader of the House is misreading what I said. If he listened to what I said, he would know that I am not opposed to people with a legal background being on the panel—I think that the chair having a legal background is right—but if we look at the CVs of the other people, what is lacking from the panel are people from, for example, industry, trade unions, the third sector and local government. People from all those sectors could have huge experience and add something to this panel.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I say once again that this panel has come from 134 applicants, and the most distinguished and capable have been drawn from it. The panel’s members include Monica Daley, a barrister of 25 years’ standing and former independent legal chair of the police misconduct committee; Professor Clare McGlynn QC, professor of law at the University of Durham—the right hon. Gentleman’s part of the world—with particular expertise in the legal regulation of sexual violence, so there is a good deal of expertise in some of the issues that may come before the panel; Mrs Lisa Ball, who brings two decades of experience in determining cases and complaints in a range of fields, including bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, misconduct and professional standards; and Mrs Johanna Higgins, Northern Ireland commissioner for the Criminal Cases Review Commission and a barrister of 27 years’ standing.

John Spellar: I am afraid that the Leader of the House is reinforcing our case. It is not about whether any of these individuals are defective. For example, an industrial tribunal panel will rightly include a lawyer as the chairman, as well as a representative of employers and a representative of trade unions—that is the make-up of all industrial tribunal panels. It is about the narrowness of the experience on this expert panel, which is drawn from a very small part of society—134 people. Does he not see that the breadth of society and people who have real-life experience are not reflected on the panel?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the real-life experience of the people who make up the panel is very varied, considerable and distinguished. As I said, there was considerable competition for these positions, with 134 applicants. The recruitment process was robust and thorough, overseen by a panel chaired by Sarah Davies.

Andrea Leadsom: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a pleasure to give way to my right hon. Friend and predecessor, who started this whole process with such distinction, and it is my privilege to be carrying it on.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I looked carefully at the CVs of the proposed members of the panel, and I wholeheartedly endorse them; I have no reservations. However, I think that one of the first things the panel should consider when it meets is the unresolved issue that, if it recommends that a Member of Parliament be expelled from this place, that disenfranchises the Member’s constituency for a period. We have had this debate before, but that seems to be a missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle, and the panel might like to consider it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is an important point, and my right hon. Friend has raised it before in the House. The hope is that the panel will meet relatively soon, if the motion goes through this afternoon. If I may, I will send a copy of today’s Hansard to the chairman, if he were to be appointed, so that he may see my right hon Friend’s contribution. Although it is an independent panel, and it would be wrong of me to tell it what should be on its agenda, that will bring to the chairman’s attention the thought that the panel should consider this.
The chairman of the panel was Sarah Davies, the Clerk Assistant. Also on the panel were the Speaker’s Counsel, Saira Salimi; Steven Haines, external member and lay members of the Bar Standards Board; and Dame Laura Cox, whose report started this process. The process was overseen at each stage by two members of the Commission appointed for the purpose: my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). The Commission has concluded—and I concur—that the eight selected candidates bring an impressive combination of qualities and experience. I believe that, together, they will bring exactly the authority and impartiality needed to build confidence in the ICGS and to demonstrate that independence, fairness and rigour sit at its heart. I commend this motion to the House.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for moving the motion, and I agree with the majority of his remarks. I draw Members’ attention to the report, which was published on 19 November 2020 on behalf of the House of Commons Commission. It lays out the exact process that the Leader of the House described.
My right hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Warley (John Spellar) made important points. Mr Speaker has said that he would look at this  issue, because otherwise we are just getting the usual suspects. For instance, given Black Lives Matter, putting adverts in a slightly different place might be a good idea, and then we would get a broad range of people applying. We thank all those who applied for these posts for agreeing to serve. I am not sure that the issue raised by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) would be a matter for the panel. That is a policy issue, rather than a judicial issue, and the panel is there to look at cases, rather than to decide on policy.

Andrea Leadsom: I completely agree that it is not the panel’s jurisdiction or role to do that, but in a way that highlights the point: it is no longer the House’s role and it is not the panel’s role either. The losers are, potentially, our constituents. I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady, but otherwise it will fall to nobody to reconsider this issue.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. She leads me to go on to say that Alison Stanley did a brilliant six-month review, and the concern is that not all her recommendations have been implemented. She is looking at the governance of who is responsible—who is the named person—for this whole process. The important part of the process is that it should be transparent and not secretive. I am aware of a number of cases that come through where perhaps the procedure is not fair on both sides—to the respondent and the claimant—but, again, that is a matter for Alison Stanley to look at in her 18-month review. As the Leader of the House said, it is a very simple survey, which can be found online, and it is open until 4 December.

Bernard Jenkin: I am here as a member of the Standards Committee, which has absolutely no jurisdiction over the adjudication of any ICGS case, but it certainly falls within the remit of the Standards Committee to keep a watching policy brief on how the ICGS develops and whether we want to inquire and report and make recommendations on the performance of the ICGS. I am sure we will, and indeed I think we will want to learn the positive lessons from the ICGS for our own code, which we are currently reviewing in our own inquiry.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention. I agree with him, and I hope that anybody who has an interest will look at it. That is why the survey is so important. I know that Alison Stanley is open to speaking to people as well, and I am sure that she will take that on board.
I am pleased that a lot of hon. Members and House staff have taken up the Valuing Others training; many people on the estate have taken it up. It is so important that they do that, because people can then see the difference between what is a management issue and what is bullying and harassment. Certainly, I was concerned to start with because, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, many of the cases that came through at the start were about serious sexual harassment. I think initially, we decided—the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire and I, among others on the working panel—that we would have two separate helplines. I know that there is one helpline for both, but I am reassured that the person answering the phone does have expertise and will have expertise on serious sexual harassment  cases. We do not want a situation where people have to repeat their stories over and over again before they are dealt with.
As well as Valuing Others training, I know that the House is looking at unconscious bias training, which I hope will be rolled out, and I will just say that Her Majesty’s Opposition’s shadow Cabinet have all been through the unconscious bias training. Other than that, Her Majesty’s Opposition support the motion.

Bernard Jenkin: I rise only briefly, as an observer rather than a participant. As I pointed out a minute ago, the Standards Committee has no role in this, though we were consulted about the shape of the final process that should adjudicate the appeal cases in the ICGS scheme and we took an interest in what the character of the panel should be. I am personally very pleased that it reflects the necessary juridical expertise for assessing evidence and balancing the arguments about what rules mean and how this should be properly and independently assessed.
I think it is important for a member of the Standards Committee to convey to the House the disquiet of the Committee that this was taken out of our hands, but also for me to explain why I think that it was right, in the end, to take it out of our hands and why I voted for that. What was evident, not just from the Cox report but from the conversations with many staff in the House service, and conversations amongst MPs, was that the people whose complaints were stifled and ignored for so many years were left with no faith in the ability of MPs to mark their own homework—our ability to adjudicate on ourselves.
I have to tell the House that I find the cases that come before us about the breach of our own code extraordinarily difficult. It is the most testing and miserable task—to find myself having to make decisions about people I know, many of whom I know well and like. Personally, I will be looking at how the panel works, because our system for adjudicating our own code—the House of Commons code of conduct—is rather unsatisfactory, for the reason I have just described, and it may well be that the experience of this far more prestigious, objective and professional panel offers us a better way of adjudicating our own code.
I reiterate that we are conducting our own inquiry into the revision of the code of conduct, which is long overdue and has been interrupted by several general elections in recent years. We are doing a comprehensive trawl of options and considering how our own code intersects with the ICGS, with the ministerial code and with the codes of political parties. Members of Parliament are subject to many codes. The public are very confused, and have either no interest or no confidence in the systems, which overlap and conflict with each other, that we have created for the various roles that people adopt in this Parliament. We have a very big task—to reduce that confusion. There is, indeed, a lot of confusion amongst right hon. and hon. Members who do not understand how these things work.
So there needs to be a much higher level of engagement and understanding and a simplification and clarification, and that is what we are working on now. I hope that we will learn from the work of the panel, and if the panel is a success, we may well learn some very positive lessons.

Patrick Grady: From the start, the SNP has welcomed and co-operated with the development and implementation of the ICGS process. Like others, I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend —he really ought to be my right hon. Friend—the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). There is an extremely well qualified and distinguished line-up of individuals for approval. [Interruption.] I am sure that was tremendously funny, but I did not catch that sedentary intervention. A very distinguished panel of candidates has been brought before us, from a range of backgrounds, from across the four nations.

Bernard Jenkin: I just misled the House. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) would not have to swear allegiance to the Crown; he would have the oath administered to him. So it is rather like having an injection; it is just given to you. Whether we like it or not, and whether we agree with it or not, the oath is just given to you. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be a Privy Counsellor, he would have to go through that process.

Patrick Grady: It is slightly off topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the best way to find out would be for the Leader of the House to phone up my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire and make that offer to him; then we will see whether or not he rises to the offer of joining Her Majesty’s Privy Council.
I do not know whether any of the candidates in this line-up are Privy Counsellors as yet, but they have all left distinguished careers, they have experience across the four nations of the United Kingdom, which is welcome, and it is a gender-balanced line-up as well—although, as the shadow Leader of the House says, there is always more that can be done to promote ethnic diversity. But I think we should thank the Clerk Assistant and the panel for selecting such quality final panellists out of all the candidates who came forward.
I just wonder whether the Leader of the House was in touch with the candidates yesterday to explain the slightly unedifying scenes that took place when the motion was suddenly withdrawn without notice. I know that when lay people are being appointed by the House to commissions and so on, they quite often watch with anticipation to see what happens—they may well be watching just now—and they may have been a little bit shocked yesterday. If notice was not given to them, I hope that some kind of apology or explanation has been given for the kind of unedifying scenes that we went through yesterday, which cannot have exactly filled them with confidence about the commitments that they are about to take up. I am glad that they are taking them up, however.
It is absolutely right, as other hon. Members have said, that bullying and harassment of any kind are called out and properly investigated. They are completely unacceptable in any workplace, particularly the one that sets the rules and standards for the rest of the country. I have undertaken the valuing others training and the unconscious bias training and found them incredibly valuable; I know that many colleagues have as well when they have had the opportunity. I would recommend them to everyone.

Andrea Leadsom: I have a small point on undertaking the various training programmes, in particular the behaviour code training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) will recall that it was supposed to be mandatory following the next general election.

Patrick Grady: Indeed. I do not know what any hon. Member’s reason for not taking part in it would be. We are all very busy, but the unconscious bias training that I took part in was delivered remotely via Zoom. Surely no harm can come from it; only good can come from taking part in some training. I would recommend it to everyone. What we are discussing now, and on the next motion, will help to strengthen the entire process. We look forward to moving forward.

John Spellar: I am sorry to introduce a slightly discordant note in the debate. It started with the Leader of the House saying that he was sure that the Committee will be meeting soon. At £700 a day, I bet they will be meeting soon—and often.
Let me make it clear from the outset that I have no animus or knowledge of any of the individuals who have been recommended, but they are surely all of a type. They did not all go to Cambridge, but quite a number of them did. At the description of them as distinguished, I almost thought that we were supposed to genuflect. It is as though we were creating a new priesthood and that, if people do law at university and then go through one of the Inns of Court and become a member of the Bar Council, they are the only people who have a valid opinion in our society, so we have to designate everything to them. It might have been the Chair of the Committee on Standards who mentioned the quality of the judiciary that we need to deal with these cases. Frankly, if they require that level of judicial intervention, they should be a matter for the criminal courts rather than for disciplinary processes.
Not just in this context, but every time an issue comes up, it is asked, “Can we have it decided by an eminent judge?” I find that rather remarkable coming from the Conservative party. It was not very long ago that it and its supporting newspapers were absolutely berating members of the judiciary for becoming involved in so many issues. It did not have such a high opinion of the judiciary then.
Many of the issues are rightly political; I am not saying these ones are, or that it should be politicians doing this. As I was saying in earlier interventions, however, not all wisdom resides in people from that narrow caste who often go to the best schools and the best universities, who manage to get themselves into the best chambers in the Inns of Court, and who then go into the judiciary.
That is why, as I pointed out, in industrial tribunals—a system that works extremely well—we have a lawyer, normally a solicitor rather than a barrister, as the chairman and then a panel. We have representatives of trade unions and representatives of employers, many  of whom have industrial relations experience and  some of whom are used to negotiating for very large establishments, such as offices, factories or whatever. Are hon. Members seriously arguing that those people do not see life, that they do not understand how life works, or that they are not able to assess evidence? That is an utterly elitist approach.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend was, like me, a trade union official in a former life and will have dealt with capable personnel managers, as they were in my day—human resources managers, as they are now. Would it not have been helpful to at least have had someone on this panel from an HR background, and possibly someone from a trade union who has actually represented people in the types of cases this panel is going to be dealing with?

John Spellar: Very much so. Such people are used to engaging with people and having to make decisions. We could have a senior nursing officer in an accident and emergency department or a senior matron in a hospital. Do they not see life? Do they not have to make decisions? Do they not have to weigh up what people are telling them? We could have retired police officers on the panel, as they are used to weighing up evidence. We must get away from this elitist concept that only lawyers are able to be above all this sort of thing.
I wish to mention the very substantial salary, which seems at variance with the advertisement. These retired judges will be on a stonking pension—we know about that because they are always complaining any time the Treasury has the temerity to try to keep their pensions in line with the pensions being imposed on other parts of the public service.
The approach being taken is also at variance with the advertisement, which said clearly that the people should have
“substantial and very senior experience in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or adjudicating capacity, or bring expertise in a relevant policy area, such as an employee or industrial relations or HR disciplinary processes.”
Of course, if we have a panel where two of those involved are part of the Bar Council or the judiciary, and we bring in headhunters, they are all part of the same social circle. I am sure the individuals would probably be very agreeable dinner table companions, but that does not mean they have wisdom or experience that outweighs that of the rest of the population, nor does it mean that we should have a pretty homogeneous group, rather than having a balance.
If we have a panel, we should have people with different realms of experience, because that would work—one for the other. Not just for this appointment, but right across the many appointments we have involvement in, the people all come from a very narrow band. We ought to be looking at the construction worker, the factory worker, the nurse and the care home assistant. I accept that we would be having people who were in a more senior representative or managerial role, as outlined in the job description. We could have somebody who is in charge of a major unit in a major retail environment. These are people with life experience.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been helpful to have had someone from the third sector on this panel, for example someone dealing with domestic violence and related issues? Many of those very able individuals could have stepped into this role well and added something to it.

John Spellar: Indeed. We could have people who have gone into those roles, often later in life, with a range of life experience, as opposed to people who have gone  from elite school to elite university, then to chambers and into the courts, where they have done well, doing their public duty as judges. They may observe a bit of life, but that is very different from living it. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House seems a little distracted by his colleague. If he would care to listen to the debate rather than to the Whips, it would be rather courteous and it might even be valuable. The fact is that we ought to look at all appointments and not automatically go to so-called headhunters who just go to the people they know. We need to broaden this out. We need to ask the CBI and the Trades Union Congress. Interestingly enough, back in the day when we were looking at Members’ expenses, we came up with a much better scheme, ultimately, than the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The House invited the CBI and the TUC to each nominate two people, who gave up their time to do it. They made an excellent contribution because they understood what they were talking about. We need to get away from elitism.
I will continue to raise these issues, because they make us not even semi-detached but detached from the public we serve. Ultimately, Members of Parliament are here to represent the public. We need to be accountable mainly to them, and stop imposing elite individuals and an elite culture.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for her support and the support of the official Opposition? We have worked closely on this matter not just in the Chamber, but in the Commission. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for his support and for his very interesting contribution, saying how he had not initially thought it was right to take it away from the Standards Committee, but that, working on the Committee and seeing how difficult it is to judge those with whom we work, he has come to the conclusion that it is the right thing to do. I think that that is a particularly helpful contribution to this afternoon’s debate.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). He wishes to give me powers that I do not have. I may be Lord President of the Council, but that does not mean I have the right of appointment to the Privy Council. I can tell him, however, that Sir Stephen Irwin is a member of the Privy Council as a Lord Justice of Appeal. They are normally sworn of the Privy Council.
In response, briefly, to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), I want to answer the question on the advert and pensions. The advert from the recruitment agency did not mention pensions or the job being full time. As I understand it, the cover page of the Commons’ own advert did say that there was a pension, but that the people who applied would not have been misled in any way because they would have had the advert from the recruitment agency.

John Spellar: I thank the Leader of the House for giving way. I am sure he will forgive me for having looked at the House of Commons’ own documentation to ascertain the position. How does he explain the inconsistency?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable and proper for the right hon. Gentleman to have done precisely that. I was merely explaining to him why the information he was raising was not the information that would have been given to people applying to the panel. It is very important that they did not apply to the panel on a false basis, thinking it was a full-time job with a nice pension when they are actually getting a per diem.
Finally, as to the independence of this brilliant and inspired panel that will do wonderful work, the right hon. Gentleman made it sound as if it was all a great chumocracy and then said that many of them were from Cambridge. Does he really think that, as an Oxford man, I would have put forward the names of people from Cambridge if they were not first class?
Question put and agreed to.

ICGS Investigations: Commons-Lords Agreement

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House approves the Eleventh Report of the Committee on Standards, ICGS investigations: Commons-Lords agreement (HC 988), and the proposed Scheme appended to that Report.— (Mr Rees-Mogg.)

Bernard Jenkin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will just speak very briefly to this matter. The Chair of the Standards Committee sends his apologies. He has had to take a close relative to hospital today. I am standing in for him, although I take responsibility for my own words.
The Standards Committee has co-operated constructively with its sister Committee, the Lords’ Conduct Committee, chaired by the noble Lord Mance, to develop an arrangement to address a loophole. As a member of the Committee on Standards, I support the motion to approve our Committee’s report. The report deals with what one might describe as an item of unfinished business arising from the House’s creation of the independent complaints and grievance scheme that we have just been discussing. The scheme was put together very rapidly, because the House rightly wished to demonstrate to the wider public that we take allegations of bullying and harassment within the parliamentary community extremely seriously, and it was acknowledged at the time that the scheme would need revision in the light of experience and that there were gaps or lacunae in the scheme that needed to be filled. One of those gaps was the lack of any arrangement between this House and the other place as to how allegations against ex-Members of one House would be proceeded with if they became Members of the other House.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Just to put the record completely straight, the working group—Members who sat on that group are in the Chamber today—was very clear that the two schemes should be aligned between this House and the House of Lords. However, due to a very unfortunate investigation that took place in the House of Lords under the previous system, it was felt that the ICGS could not be implemented in that House at that time. That is why this anomaly has sprung up. I would also like to raise the important point that, as things stand with the ICGS having been working for some time, its findings are just too slow. There have been live instances where individuals who have been Members of this place are being considered for membership of the other place when potential complaints against them are still pending in this place. It is not clear to me that the Standards Committee’s report deals with that circumstance.

Bernard Jenkin: I will certainly take back to the Committee what my right hon. Friend is saying, and if we need to make a further amendment to the arrangements, we should do so. As things stand, however, former MPs who are now in the other place cannot be investigated under the ICGS for behaviour that is alleged to have taken place while they were MPs.
After our discussions with Lord Mance and the Lords’ Conduct Committee, and with the two Houses’ Commissioners also working closely together on this, the arrangement that we now propose is set out in an  appendix to the Standards Committee report. It proposes that ex-MPs now in the other place should be investigated under the Commons procedures involving independent investigators, the Commissioner and, if necessary, the new independent expert panel that the House has just nominated. If that does not satisfy my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), could she put on record why it does not do so?
If an ex-MP who is now in the other place is found to have breached the behaviour code, this House will not be involved in sanctioning them. Instead, the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards will recommend a sanction and the Lords’ Conduct Committee would hear any appeal against that sanction. The full House of Lords would decide on imposing a serious sanction, such as suspension or expulsion, but the important point is that the investigation and the findings would be done under our system in this House, and the House of Lords has agreed to that.

Andrea Leadsom: I do not want to detain the House, but this is a really important issue and my hon. Friend asked me to put my views on record. This relates specifically to when someone who has been a Member of this House and has outstanding complaints against them is under consideration for being offered a position in the other place by the House of Lords Committee, which is not privy to the existence of the ongoing complaints about them in this place under the ICGS.

Bernard Jenkin: I think that would be a matter more for the Lords Appointments Commission or the vetting procedures—

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, it is.

Bernard Jenkin: That does not fall under our remit at all, but in recent cases that I can think of, an estoppel has been put on possible elevations to the other place of Members who are under suspicion or where there has been controversy. Obviously, if it was an entirely secret and non-disclosable allegation that had not found its way into the public sphere, we would need to check that there would be a procedure for that. However, that is a separate matter from whether a complaint is going to be investigated and adjudicated by the ICGS.
We have also addressed the complementary problem. There are not many Members of the other place who choose to renounce their peerages and seek election to the House of Commons, but this can and does occasionally happen. The Committee therefore recommends that the new arrangements should be reciprocal. Allegations against an ex-peer who might then be in the Commons would be investigated under the procedures of the other place, but any sanction would be carried out within this House.
The Lords Conduct Committee has agreed a report in very similar terms to our own, and this has been approved in the other place. I urge this House to do likewise and approve these sensible arrangements, which are necessary to block off this lack of redress in our measures for tackling bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct by our Members and ex-Members.

Rosie Winterton: Does the Leader of the House wish to make any comments?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I will speak very briefly, if I may, simply to say that this is constitutionally very important because of the exclusive cognisance that both Houses have of their own business. Therefore, that an agreement has been reached whereby the House in which the offence took place may investigate, but the House where the person has ended up may sanction is a very satisfactory agreement. It respects exclusive cognisance, as is constitutionally proper, but will also ensure that the ICGS system is able to work effectively, so I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Rosie Winterton: I suspend the House for three minutes to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next.
Sitting suspended.

UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement

[Relevant Documents: Second Report of the International Trade Committee, Session 2019-21; UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, HC 914.]

Elizabeth Truss: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.
I am delighted to open this debate on the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement, otherwise known as CEPA, in a landmark moment for our national trading history. This is the first debate we are having on a new trade deal since our departure from the European Union. This is the first time we have been able to have such a discussion in the House of Commons for nearly 50 years. It was not possible when Brussels represented us in trade negotiations, but things have changed. We now have a deal directly negotiated between London and Tokyo, and the whole House will be glad to know that this will be the first of many debates about our independently negotiated trade agreements. There will be more to come as we pursue gold-standard deals with Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea.

John Spellar: The right hon. Lady is right in one respect, but we have had many debates recently on trade deals. Indeed, we had a veto on those trade deals between the EU and other partners, and views were expressed. I suspect that we were on the same side on the Canada and Singapore trade deals. We have had those debates. This should be about the principles of trade, rather than just the niceties of whether we are in or out of the EU.

Elizabeth Truss: I observe that the right hon. Gentleman did support many of those deals. I afraid that the same cannot be said for most of the members of his party, who did not support, for example, the Japan trade deal when it previously went through the House. We are in a completely different position. From 1 January next year, we will be operating our own independent trade policies, we will be setting our own tariffs and we will be operating our own trade agreements. That is a huge step forward for the UK as an independent trading nation. Next year, we will be talking about our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, but today we are here to talk about Japan.
The UK-Japan agreement is a British-shaped deal going further and faster than the EU deal in areas such as data and digital, services, advanced manufacturing and food and drink. The deal has been welcomed across the board, from the CBI to techUK and the National Farmers Union. It was even welcomed by the Labour party—although rather tepidly and although Labour did not actually vote for the original Japan deal.
The deal is estimated to add over £15 billion in trade to our already growing trading relationship with the third largest economy in the world. We expect it to be even more. We have asked Professor Tony Venables from Oxford University to lead a review of our future modelling to ensure that it accounts for our world-leading  digital and data trade. The United States recent study of its deal with Mexico and Canada found that the biggest economic benefit of that deal came from the provisions on digital trade, and we are confident that this is the case for the agreement with Japan, which is why we want to better quantify the benefits of future free trade agreements.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: On the quantification of future benefits, of course the Secretary of State has given us the most advantageous figures that she has, which are about what trade would have been if we were out of the European deal. The reality is that for businesses on the ground very little will change between the end of this year and the beginning of January, and the reality is that the quantifiable benefit she talks about is actually a maintaining of the status quo, is it not?

Elizabeth Truss: The reality is that if we had not negotiated this deal, we would have reverted to trading on World Trade Organisation terms with Japan and businesses on both sides would have faced tariffs and barriers to trade. But we have gone further than just continuity with this deal, and I am about to tell the House exactly how that is the case. This deal is better and more valuable than the Japan-EU deal, which is otherwise known as the JEPA, because in simple terms the CEPA is deeper than the JEPA. It goes further and faster in areas of in vital importance to the United Kingdom economy.
On digital trade, we are protecting source code, enabling the free flow of data while agreeing a ban on data localisation, saving companies the cost of setting up servers in Japan. Our textile and confectionery manufacturers will benefit from more liberal rules of origin, making their goods more competitive by allowing up to £88 million of UK exports to benefit from reduced duties. Our creative industries will have their brands and innovations protected, as we go beyond the EU in tackling the online infringement of intellectual property rights. Our fantastic food and drink producers will benefit from increased protection for iconic goods, as around 70 geographical indications, 10 times as many as before, will be protected in Japan, subject to their domestic processes next year.
Our services industry will have more regulatory co-operation, safeguards on data storage and greater flexibility to move talent across the world.
This is clearly a more British-shaped deal, and it delivers more benefits to the UK than the previous deal. Some Opposition Members have asked for a precise economic assessment of this difference, but in our Command Paper we agreed to assess our deals, not the deals of other countries or trade blocs, and I am not going to waste the time of Department for International Trade economists by asking them to assess deals that are clearly inferior to the one that we have secured.
This is a deal that will benefit every part of the United Kingdom. It delivers for our farmers and businesses, and it delivers for Japanese investors such as Nissan, Toyota and Hitachi, supporting thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom.

Andrew Griffith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to all the opportunities she lists, this deal is a fantastic opportunity  for the growing and sustainable industry that makes British sparkling wine across 770 vineyards in the United Kingdom? It employs 10,000 people today, and is on a journey to increase its exports and could potentially employ 20,000 or 30,000 people in the future. By securing important geographic indicators, my right hon. Friend has unlocked that opportunity for us all.

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of English sparkling wine and knows that this will be one of the geographical indicators that goes through the domestic process early next year, to be registered in Japan and recognised in Japan, and who knows how long it would have taken under the EU, because under its deal, it has to negotiate every new indicator. We have got agreement on those 70 indicators through the process, and the only circumstance under which English sparkling wine would not qualify is if English sparkling wine were produced in Japan, and I do not believe that to be the case.
This deal aligns with our high environment, animal welfare, labour, data and food safety standards, and it helps to position the United Kingdom as the world’s hub for services in tech trade and establishes us as a major force in global trade. Following Japan’s economic push on womanomics, we have also signed an entire chapter on women’s economic empowerment to help female entrepreneurs in both our nations—another chapter that was not included in the EU deal.

Jonathan Edwards: I do not want to rain too much on the Secretary of State’s parade, but she will be aware that, according to the British Government’s own figures, the Welsh economy will grow by only 0.05% over 15 years, based on a WTO baseline, as a result of this deal. Also, the British Government’s policy of leaving the single market and the customs union means we will need over 70 deals to make up for that loss, and if we have no deal that figure will be considerably worse.

Elizabeth Truss: This deal is worth at least £15 billion in extra trade, not including the trade that was already increasing between our two nations, and there are significant benefits for Wales, including the recognition of Welsh lamb as a protected geographical indicator as well as more opportunities for manufacturing industries.

Craig Williams: I cannot help but stand up when I hear the words “Welsh lamb”. It is a wonderful GI that I know the Secretary of State is working to protect. On Japanese business, Wales saw Japanese trade increase in 2018 by £250 million. That is a 25% increase, and this deal will solidify that. I normally work with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and welcome what he has to say, but I think that this deal really is terrific for the Welsh economy.

Elizabeth Truss: We had a major success in 2019 when we gained access for British lamb into the Japanese market, and, of course, one of the products that is flowing into Japan is our fantastic Welsh lamb.
This agreement is not just about economics, but about our close relationship with Japan and the Japanese. Together we are helping to set the standard for trade in  the 21st century. That does not come as a surprise, because our relationship with Japan is deep and long standing. Way back in 1613, King James I concluded the UK’s first trade agreement with Japan. Under Queen Victoria, a treaty of peace, friendship and commerce was signed in 1858. We see that friendship endure under Japan’s current Emperor Naruhito, who has written fondly of his time studying at Oxford. We continue to benefit from Japanese commerce after Margaret Thatcher opened the door to new investment from companies such as Nissan, supporting local jobs and communities.

Aaron Bell: A fortnight ago, I was delighted to receive an email from the embassy of Japan, informing me that my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme will receive 30 of the cherry trees that it agreed to donate to the United Kingdom. That was agreed in 2017, as part of the prosperity agreement, but it is a real symbol of what we are now doing with Japan in this trade deal. I compliment the Japanese Government and my right hon. Friend’s Department for all they have done.

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend. Our relationship with Japan is going from strength to strength. Japan and the United Kingdom are two great island nations, but we are not insular in our embrace of freedom, democracy, human rights and free trade, and we will be working together when the UK has the presidency of the G7 next year to advance on all these fronts and to champion much-needed reform of the global rules for services and digital trade.
Next year, Japan will chair the comprehensive and progressive trans-Pacific partnership, a high-standards agreement that promotes the values that we believe in for rules-based free trade. The CEPA secures Japan’s support for our joining that club and will provide further market access under that agreement. This agreement will turbocharge our trade with dynamic members from Canada and Australia to Chile and Peru. The CPTPP is more than the sum of its parts, because we gain access to a free trade area with common standards and rules of origin, which means flexibility and opportunities, but, unlike with the EU, we retain control of our borders, our laws and our money.
This huge gateway to the Pacific region will help us unleash our potential as a global hub for services and technology trade. On joining CPTPP, global Britain would have unprecedented and deep access to markets covering 13% of the world’s GDP, which equates to more than £11 trillion in some of the world’s fastest growing markets. If we add in the US, this would amount to over 40% of the world’s GDP, which equates to more than £27 trillion.

Catherine West: The Secretary of State is very generous in giving way. As a member of the all-party group on Japan, I agree with some of the things that she is saying, but does she agree that, in principle, it would be much better if we had more scrutiny in advance of votes on trade deals, so that we can have this kind of debate rather than having it post facto?

Elizabeth Truss: I will come on to the issue of scrutiny later in my speech, but we committed in our Command Paper to produce a scoping assessment, which we did.  We have produced our objectives and there are opportunities for them to be scrutinised through the International Trade Committee, and that has been happening during the process. There will be full opportunity for a debate afterwards. This puts us in a very strong position compared with comparative parliamentary democracies, and of course I welcome the opportunity to debate issues such as CPTPP during the accession process next year.
Today’s debate is truly historic, as trade policy is once again a matter for the United Kingdom and for this House. It is part of our new system of proper scrutiny, of which I am delighted to be a part. Parliament will rightly have the final say on the ratification of this deal. I am very grateful for this report from the International Trade Committee, which has made clear the desire for a debate. We will shortly be introducing an amendment to the Trade Bill, which will write the role of our vital Trade and Agriculture Commission into law, again giving independent advice to Parliament on trade and agriculture.

Neil Parish: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for putting together the continuation of the Trade and Agriculture Commission and setting it up as an expert group for the next three years, because it will be very important, as we move forward to deal with Australia and others, that we really drill down on the way that agriculture is done and food is produced to keep our high animal welfare standards in this country.

Elizabeth Truss: I am delighted that my hon. Friend welcomes the putting of the Trade and Agriculture Commission into statute, which will be done through the Trade Bill. We need to make sure that farmers are engaged, businesses are engaged and our whole country is engaged in these trade agreements because we are doing them to benefit the United Kingdom—to make sure that every part of this country is helped to thrive. We are lowering barriers to trade and creating—

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Elizabeth Truss: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and we have a limited amount of time for this debate.

Andrew Bowie: rose—

Elizabeth Truss: I will, however, give way to my hon. Friend.

Andrew Bowie: On benefiting the whole country, we have yet to mention Scotland and Scottish produce. I am delighted that under this agreement we will see increased numbers of products that are geographically protected, with Scotch beef and Scotch whisky added to that list. The trade between Scotland and Japan is incredible. It dwarfs even Wales, with £500 million-worth of trade between Scotland and Japan last year, and this is only set to grow under the incredible deal that has been negotiated by my right hon. Friend.

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend mentions some of the benefits from the Japan deal. Of course, there are also measures to protect the Scotch whisky industry from counterfeiting in Japan. I know that was very strongly welcomed by the industry when we announced the results of the Japan trade deal.

Charlotte Nichols: The Secretary of State will know that applications for new food geographical indicators through the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture take, on average, five months and had a success rate of only 15% last year. Can she tell us the equivalent figures for new alcohol applications?

Elizabeth Truss: I can tell the hon. Lady that we have agreed with the Japanese that our 70 geographical indications will go through the process and, unless there is some objection by a producer in Japan producing exactly the same product, those procedures will be successful.
As I said, I am grateful for the report from the International Trade Committee, which made clear the desire for a debate. We will shortly be introducing the amendment that I mentioned earlier.
The House will now understand why on signing this deal in Japan, the land of the rising sun, I hailed the dawn of a new era for free trade. Days ago, we struck a vital continuity deal with Canada, which means that we have now secured 89% of the value of UK trade with continuity countries and with Japan, which goes further. These 53 countries cover £164 billion-worth of trade. No other country has conducted so many trade negotiations simultaneously and delivered. We have achieved this by being prepared to stand our ground and to fight hard for Britain’s interests.
I am very confused about Labour’s approach to these deals, which seems to veer between complete capitulation and a refusal to sign any deal. I read that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) will not vote for any deal we get with the EU, but apparently she does not agree with her leader on this matter. She has told us before that she would not sign any trade deal with the US, yet she seems prepared to do a deal at any price with everyone else. The Opposition have attacked us for not rolling over trade deals that they did not vote for in the first place. They criticise us for not engaging with countries that refuse to come to the negotiating table, and then they repeat the media lines of foreign Governments. Do they understand how negotiations work? I do not think they do.
Let us be honest: negotiating trade deals in a pandemic is not easy, but I am incredibly proud of our team, who have been negotiating in video conferences and phone calls round the clock, and they have got the job done. Just today, long before Parliament opened this morning, our negotiators were deep in talks with Australia, which are now on to their third round. After the House rises this evening, I will be speaking to my New Zealand counterpart about the next round we are about to undertake. This is just the start for global Britain. We are back out there, making the case for free trade and helping to reshape global trading rules. Our deal with Japan is vital for our economic recovery. It will drive jobs and prosperity across every nation and region of the UK, ensuring a brighter future for the British people. I commend this agreement to the House.

Rosie Winterton: This is all very lively, as I can see, and a large number of hon. and right hon. Members wish to contribute to this debate, so I will start with an immediate five-minute limit for Back Benchers. That may well have to come down later, but we will try to keep that on for as long as possible.

Emily Thornberry: Before I begin my response, I feel obliged to say two things. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)—Nissan is based in her constituency—wanted to be involved in this debate, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and another of my hon. Friends, who has extensive experience in this area and an important constituency interest, but who understandably does not want his name to be mentioned. He says this is an affront to democracy. All of them wanted me to put on record that they were keen to take part in this important debate, but unfortunately were excluded from doing so by the Leader of the House and his current rules for virtual participation.
Secondly, I feel that I should inform the House of an important development overnight on the issue of international trade deals, which somehow the Secretary of State did not see fit to announce. I can tell colleagues that the news was slipped on to her Department’s website this morning that no continuity agreements are expected to be agreed with Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, which means that our current EU trade deals with them will expire on 31 December and not be replaced. Our trade deals with those three countries were worth £3.5 billion last year. To put that into perspective for those on the Government Back Benches, the growth in UK exports achieved by the deal with Japan is forecast to be £2.6 billion in 15 years’ time.
Nevertheless, turning back to the subject of today’s debate, let me make clear at the outset, as I did 10 weeks ago, that I congratulate the Secretary of State on securing this enhanced continuity agreement with Japan. During a time of great economic turmoil, it provides an important measure of certainty for all those British and Japanese companies that would otherwise have lost their current terms of trade on 31 December. I congratulate the Secretary of State, and I also thank her for holding today’s debate and vote in Government time.
Let me pause for a moment on an important issue of parliamentary scrutiny and approval. As colleagues will know, under the current Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 rules, a new trade agreement must be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days before it can be ratified in law. The only way that Parliament can block that agreement is through an Opposition day motion, but only if an Opposition day is granted during the 21-day period. We are now on day 15 of ratification for the Japan agreement, and no Opposition day has been granted in that period, nor is one scheduled. If it had not been for the Government’s act of great generosity today, Parliament would have no right and no power to debate and approve this important agreement. It is not an isolated case: of the 20 continuity agreements signed by the Government since 2019, 15 of them have completed their 21 days of ratification with no Opposition day debates granted during those periods, including all 11 agreements signed by the current Secretary of State.

Catherine West: Will my right hon. Friend accept an intervention?

Emily Thornberry: I will rattle through a bit of my speech, because I have the beady eyes of Madam Deputy Speaker on me. Once I know I am definitely halfway, I will take interventions.
The same situation with Opposition day debates is set to be true of the continuity agreements recently reached with Ukraine, the Ivory Coast, Kenya, Canada and, of course, the 11 other continuity agreements that the Government still need to secure in the next five weeks—or 14, if we are still counting Algeria, Bosnia and Serbia.
In other words, the process for parliamentary scrutiny and approval that the Government are relying on for our future deals as an independent trading nation is failing repeatedly at the very first hurdle, through the denial of Opposition day debates. I therefore greatly welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to grant this debate and vote in Government time, and hope that she will amend the Trade Bill, because she will now have realised that this simply will not do; the right to debate and approve future trade agreements should be a matter of law, not just a matter of discretion. That brings me to the main theme of my remarks: the importance of the Japan agreement as a precedent for other trade deals to come, in terms of both substance and the way in which they are presented to the world.
Let me start with some of the positives. I welcome the Secretary of State’s dedicated chapter on the role of women in our economy. That is definitely an important precedent. I hope that her friend Tony Abbott will study it closely to appreciate that female empowerment means more than just plugging in the iron. I welcome the new ground broken in this agreement on trade in digital services and data—a vital area of future growth for exports and investment—and hope that the Government’s stated principles, particularly on net neutrality, will be precedents for our future trade deals with Australia and the United States. But I am afraid that there are many other areas in which I hope that the Japan deal does not set a precedent.
Beyond digital, there is a disappointing absence of any new measures to support the vital role of Japanese companies as investors in our economy and creators of British jobs—something that is especially important in the current climate, as we look to safeguard the jobs provided by companies such as Nissan. There is also a lack of any new, enforceable commitments on climate change and the environment. That is another wasted opportunity and one that does not bode well for the ongoing negotiations with Australia. There is the absence of any progress on workers’ rights, coupled with the failure to consult trade unions on the deal, as well as the rolling back of commitments on civil society dialogue. I am afraid that this is all consistent with a Secretary of State whose official trade union advisory group contains just four members, one of which is the British Medical Association.
When it comes to deeply unfortunate precedents, there is also the sheer extent to which the Secretary of State has exaggerated, oversold and misrepresented the benefits of a UK-Japan deal compared with the EU-Japan deal that it replaces. Let us take a single example: agriculture and food. She tells us that 70 new British products will be protected by GI status thanks to her  deal, but that will only be true if they are approved by Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture—a process that takes at least five months and which resulted in the rejection of 85% of applications last year. She tells us that our farmers and food producers will benefit from lower Japanese tariffs, but that will only be true if they are exporting to Japan ostrich feathers, dried eggs or 180 proof alcohol, which none of them currently does.
The Secretary of State tells us that we will benefit from continued access to the EU tariff rate quotas for exports to Japan of products such as soft cheese and cake mix, but that will only be true if the EU does not use up those quotas itself. She tells us that British farmers will have access to Japan’s quota for imports of malt, which, I am delighted to tell colleagues, is true. It is true! But she did not mention that it is actually a global quota to which every farmer in the world has access—so I do not know why she is looking so pleased with herself—and which can be withdrawn by Japan at any time. Finally, her Department’s Twitter feed tells us—during an episode of “The Great British Bake Off”, no less—that imports of Japanese soy sauce will be cheaper, which, as thousands of people pointed out, is not true in the slightest.
In one area after another, the spin from the Secretary of State and her Department does not match the substance, and her concern for how the deal will be presented appears to be more of a priority than the deal that she will actually deliver. That is a hugely damaging precedent, and one that I hope will not be followed—for example, in the Canada deal signed last weekend—particularly when it comes to our cheese exporters. After all, if it is the case that, like the Japan deal, we will only get access to the EU’s quota on exports of cheese to Canada if the EU has not used up the quota itself, that is deeply worrying for our dairy industry.

Elizabeth Truss: I assure the right hon. Lady that we have access to the EU reserve on equal terms with the EU.

Emily Thornberry: So there is a cake of a certain size—the tariff quota—and the EU and Britain will have access to that cake. Who gets what bit first? What happens if the EU gets the cake first—what does Britain do then? Is it first come, first served? Or is the cake already cut up in pieces? I wonder whether the right hon. Lady could help us with that.

Elizabeth Truss: I am happy to furnish the right hon. Lady with a letter about the details of the licensing procedures, but it is important to understand that, in a situation different from that for the tariff rate quota with Japan, the UK reserve is applied for on an equal basis with the EU.

Emily Thornberry: Given the time, I will with your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, take some other interventions at this moment, as I am halfway through my speech.

Catherine West: My right hon. Friend mentioned workers’ rights; does she agree with the now sadly deceased Senator John Lewis that, had workers’ rights been more at the heart of a proper consultative process, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations may have ended better than they did?

Emily Thornberry: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have to say that trade deals generally are better when we consult properly and extensively and put trust in Parliament, which unfortunately the Conservative party does not seem to have at this time.

Jonathan Edwards: Also missing from the Secretary of State’s comments were the Government’s own figures, which indicate that Japanese imports to the UK will benefit at a level four times greater than that for UK exports to Japan. Does that not indicate that it is actually a very good deal for Japan?

Emily Thornberry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I am coming to that.
When it comes to the exaggeration of benefits and the misrepresentation of the Japanese trade deal, one crucial issue is left unresolved, and it is a vital precedent to get right. By my count, I have now asked the Secretary of State a very simple question three times on the Floor of the House, twice in letters and once in a written parliamentary question and—she knows what is coming— I ask it again now: in pounds and pence, what is the forecast increase in UK exports and growth resulting from the UK-Japan deal compared with the EU-Japan deal that it replaces?
I fail to see why the Secretary of State gets so indignant about this question; after all, she is the one who has repeatedly claimed over the past 75 days that the deal she has negotiated with Japan goes “beyond and above” the EU-Japan deal, goes “further and faster” than the EU-Japan deal and delivers “additional economic benefits” compared with the EU-Japan deal. Indeed, when I pressed her last week simply to confirm that the forecast for exports and growth was higher under her deal than under the EU-Japan deal, the Secretary of State told the House, “Yes, it is higher”, so why has she continually refused to quantify that difference? Why will she not provide the figures, in pounds and pence, to back her claims?
All is not lost, though: we might be able to make some progress on this point today. I went back to the Department’s original impact assessment, published in May 2018, of the effects of the EU-Japan deal. It is a detailed 51-page document, signed and authorised on the front cover by the Minister for Trade Policy, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands). I have to say that I do not think it is the right hon. Gentleman’s best piece of work—the assumptions and baselines are pretty sketchy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) was pretty scathing about it during the debate in 2018—but, nevertheless, it is what we have to go on; we do not have anything else.
On page 2, after the Minister’s signature, it says in black and white:
“The analysis assumes that the UK continues to trade…after EU exit…with Japan on an equivalent preferential basis to the EPA.”
In other words, this is what we have been asking for and what the Secretary of State has repeatedly refused to provide—an analysis by her Department, authorised by her closest ministerial colleague, of what would happen if we had just stuck to the terms of the EU-Japan deal.
I remind colleagues—I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) wants to write this down, because it might be worth coming  back to—that in the final assessment produced last month by the Department of the long-term impact of the UK-Japan deal, the forecast increase in UK exports to Japan was £2.6 billion, and the forecast increase in UK GDP was £1.5 billion. Let us compare those figures with the Department’s assessment of the long-term impact of the EU-Japan deal. Under that assessment, the forecast increase in UK exports to Japan was not £2.6 billion but £4.3 billion, and the forecast increase in UK GDP was not £1.5 billion but £2.6 billion. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that does not sound like further and faster, above and beyond, additional or higher to me. It sounds like smaller, slower, lower and lamer.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will tell me that the 2018 forecasts were inaccurate, the methodology was flawed and the Minister for Trade Policy was having a bad hair day, although he did put his name on it. All those things may be true, but here is the problem: unless and until she can produce an assessment of how the UK-Japan deal compares with the EU-Japan deal in terms of the forecast for UK exports and growth, that is all we have to go on. The two assessments produced by her Department in 2018 and 2020 show that her historic, groundbreaking, British-shaped deal has left our country worse off than if we had simply rolled over the provisions in the EU-Japan agreement. My suggestion to the Secretary of State is that, until she can provide her own assessment of the difference between the two deals, she should stop making exaggerated claims about the “additional economic benefits” of her deal, because quite frankly, she does not have the figures to back them up.
That is why this issue really matters, and that is why it is important that we get this precedent right before the Secretary of State goes off to negotiate any more trade deals on our country’s behalf. It does not matter whether it is an issue as small as soy sauce imports from Japan or as big as car exports to Europe. We gain nothing in international credibility if we overstate what our trade deals have achieved. Indeed, we risk misleading the British people and undermining their confidence in the importance of trade if we claim benefits from the agreements we negotiate that are simply not borne out by the facts.
I welcome the trade agreement with Japan—all of us on the Opposition Benches do—but the Secretary of State has done herself no favours and done our country no service in the way in which she has presented this agreement and oversold its benefits. I hope she will learn the right lessons from this when it comes to negotiating our new trade deals with the US, Australia, New Zealand, the rest of CPTPP and the Mercosur countries in the coming years. More importantly, I hope that a renewed focus on substance over presentation and the chastening loss of our trade deals with Algeria, Bosnia and Serbia will encourage her to get her head down over the next five weeks and do the hard, unglamorous work of sorting out the other 11 continuity agreements worth £55 billion in trade with Mexico, Singapore, Ghana and others before the clock runs out and before any more of the free trade agreements we already have are carelessly and needlessly thrown away.

Liam Fox: I want to begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her incredible team of Ministers, our  fabulous negotiating team, our Japan team at DIT and our team in Tokyo, led by ambassador Paul Madden, who have all contributed enormously to the success of this negotiation. I want briefly to explain why I think this deal is important in the global trade environment, what it says about Japan’s outlook and the UK’s outlook and why it matters for CPTPP.
All trade liberalisation matters, particularly at the present time. Even before the covid pandemic, global trade was shrinking—partly for cyclical reasons, 10 years post the financial crisis; partly because of trade tensions, not least between China and the United States; and partly because of rising protectionism, not least in the G20. The G20 represent 90% of global GDP and 80% of global trade. At the end of the financial crisis, only 0.7% of G20 imports were covered by restrictive measures. In the first quarter of 2020, that had mushroomed to 10.3%—a huge barrier for developing countries to have to overcome to be able to sell their goods into developed markets.
We have also had a failure of liberalisation at the WTO—25 years and all we have seen is the trade facilitation agreement, no further liberalisation—and we have seen far too few multilateral agreements. In fact, we have seen none apart from TFA; we are now moving to plurilateral, regional and then bilateral FTAs. That is why any liberalisation should be welcomed in this House.
Japan is a country with a GDP of $4.97 trillion. It has a global GDP share of 4.13%—not an inconsiderable market—with a GDP per capita of over $39,000. Japan is increasingly assertive and confident on the global stage. When TPP was looking as though it might collapse when President Trump pulled the United States out, Prime Minister Abe stepped up and led its recovery. I am sure that everyone in the House would like to wish him good health in his retirement.
We have seen increased co-operation in security between the UK and Japan, with the first joint exercise by UK troops in Japan only last year. We have a strong investment relationship with Japan. A self-confident, assertive Japan is good for our bilateral relations, good for regional security and good for global prosperity. My right hon. Friend said right at the outset what she thought that meant for the UK’s outlook. Clearly, having an independent trade policy is one of the positive consequences of Brexit. This agreement itself says a lot about the UK’s outlook. It brings improvements to mobility provisions for business travellers and it is has clear pluses in terms of data and digital, indicating the UK’s forward-leaning position on this most important element in the global economy and our understanding of the importance of e-commerce, not only as a key enabler of development but as an empowerment tool—not least for women in the global economy, particularly in the least developing economies.
The agreement also helps us to escape from the trap of the EU’s data localisation. The four countries—Germany, France, Slovenia and Austria—that held the rest of the EU to ransom are out of step with the rest of the global economy. They had a medieval view of data localisation, and not only have we escaped it by being out of the European Union, but we have managed to go forward in this agreement. Of course, the real gain that we would get with Japan would be global services liberalisation, because a multilateral agreement, or even an open plurilateral agreement, would give us far greater access to what we really need.
Finally, let me say something about CPTPP. This is a regional grouping of increasing importance. As my right hon. Friend said, it represents an increasing share of global GDP. With the UK, it would be bigger in GDP share than the EU; with the United States, its share would be over 40%. Here is a great opportunity: if we can persuade the new United States Administration to take America back into TPP alongside the UK, it will also have net benefits for our trading relationship with the United States.
Eleven fast-growing countries: a single set of rules of origin, allowing content from all CPTPP countries to be cumulated—but above all else, its advantage lies in the strategic environment. If we want to deal with the problems of China in global trade, in terms of intellectual property theft and transparency, we are going to do it not by hitting it with tariffs repeatedly, but by creating a parallel structure with a widened CPTPP that shows what can be achieved by genuine free trade and adherence to global rules. That is the real prize for us.

Alyn Smith: Last time we discussed this text, I said that I would reserve my enthusiasm until we saw more of the detail. I am rather glad I did, because while it would be churlish of me not to give the Secretary of State her moment—this is an achievement, and I welcome it—it is really small beer. Any rational person recognises that in any course of action there are upsides and downsides, costs and benefits, and any course of action will have consequences. I am struck, to mangle Thomas Hardy, that this is a treaty in which no Brexiter would see anything to dislike, but no objective person anything to admire when set against the disadvantages of this course of action.
In EU stuff, in trade and in life, if we do not look at things in the round—if we do not look at the full picture—we will make poor conclusions. As we heard earlier, the consequences of giving up the benefits of the EU-Japan trade deal, to be replaced by this deal, have not been properly analysed. By the UK Government’s figures, such as they are on this, the deal will add 0.07% percent to UK GDP. That is not a small amount of money and I welcome it, but we need to look in the round at what we are losing.
I am struck, as always, by the capacity of Government Members to be giddy with excitement over the Brexit process and the potential hypothetical upsides, which, in a spirit of intellectual honesty, I accept may exist. I am proudly pro-European. A cornerstone of the SNP’s economic plans for Scotland is membership of the single market. We believe we were adequately well represented by the EU on the world stage. PGIs were mentioned earlier and there is an interesting point to be asked, and perhaps answered, about what protections the UK Government sought within the EU’s negotiation and at what point the UK disengaged from that process to foster its own deal, but that is a different argument. I accept that we have left the European Union and we need to properly analyse the costs and benefits of where we are now.
There may be some advantages to this deal. There may be some things that fit better. I have my doubts and I am not convinced that it was worth the change, but the  SNP is pro-trade. As I say, we believe that the risk to our existing trade patterns is not set off properly by the benefits of this deal. Japan accounts for 1.8% of the UK’s exports of goods; the EU accounts for 46% of them. So to get the hypothetical potential upsides of the Japan deal, the UK jeopardises the real-world existing benefits of the EU single market membership and access right now. To ignore that strikes me as flatly absurd.

Liam Fox: I am delighted to hear that the SNP is pro-trade. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what assessment has been made of the cost of trade to Scotland of the SNP and Scotland withdrawing from the UK single market?

Alyn Smith: We will tell the right hon. Gentleman that when we are bringing forward the independence prospectus. We regret that the UK has left the European Union. We regret the consequences to all our businesses, traders and exporters of the increased complexity and uncertainty that leaving the EU single market means. Our proposition on independence will be rejoining the EU market, and that has consequences for our trade flows, of course, but a proper analysis of how much Scottish trade goes through England, rather than to England, is an interesting statistic in itself. In the same way as Ireland, pre-EU membership, was very heavily dependent on the UK market, Scotland’s trade flows will change also.
There are consequences, which I do not dismiss and deny, but let us talk about this deal right now as opposed to our plans for the future. This deal right now is not worth the candle, is not worth the effort and is in no way better than what we are giving up to get it. A real-world example, where the Secretary of State and I have a degree of common ground, is cheese. She has mentioned cheese a number of times. I note that it was a particularly nice touch to give a jar of British Stilton to Japan’s Minister Motegi to celebrate this deal. I wonder: did the Secretary of State check whether he is lactose intolerant? There was an interesting statistic—I see that there are doctors in the House— from The Lancet in October 2017 that 73% of the Japanese population are lactose intolerant. Perhaps we should consider what the opportunities for our exports of cheese actually are in the real world, as opposed to Panglossian excitement about what they might be, hypothetically.
In conclusion, we welcome this treaty—just. We think it is better than the alternatives, but like any responsible Government, we are concerned about the real-world consequences and real-world costs to all our exporters right now of jeopardising our closest trading relationships with the EU, and, as we have heard, of the failure to roll over trade agreements with the wider world. It was best put by Mike Hawes, the chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, who said:
“We hope the deal can be ratified swiftly but, for both sides to benefit fully, we still need to urgently complete an ambitious and tariff-free UK-EU deal—and time is rapidly running out.”
I counsel Government Members to save their hubris until the bigger questions are answered.

Mark Garnier: By rights, the Chair of the International Trade Committee, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan  MacNeil), should be making this speech, but he is stuck in the Western Isles and unfortunately cannot be here. I am joined by a number of Committee colleagues, however, and I am sure that we will make similar speeches.
I start by thanking the Government for how much effort they have put into helping the Committee’s scrutiny process. There is no doubt that, at every opportunity when we have asked the Secretary of State to help out, she has come along and been very helpful to us, and has been keen to help the process of scrutiny. I will say more about that in a minute.
I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said about the extraordinary amount of work that has been done by the Department and its Ministers. I also point out that I was part of the ministerial team when he set up the Department, and the reason it is so qualified to do this now is the incredibly hard work that he put in as Secretary of State. He had the foresight to take on the trade negotiators and Crawford Falconer to lead the trade policy team to make the Department fit to do all these trade deals and roll-overs.
To turn to our report, we categorically congratulate the Government on their achievements and on helping us out, but I will raise one or two points. There is a big argument about whether this is a roll-over deal or a new deal. Actually, it seems to be a bit of a hybrid deal. Although if this deal had not been done there would be no deal at all, it seems to have been based on JEEPA—the Japan-EU economic partnership agreement—so it is a bit of one and a bit of the other. When it comes to scrutiny, that means that we have tended to look at some economic forecasts that compare it with the WTO and some economic forecasts that compare it with JEEPA.
Looking at how it compares with JEEPA is incredibly important, because it signifies what it will be like when we modify all the roll-over deals that we have made so far. For example, CETA has been rolled over, but at some point we will want to improve on that deal. What we have done here, with the improvement on JEEPA, signifies what can be achieved elsewhere, which is obviously something that we will be taking a close look at.
When it comes to scrutiny, there is no doubt that it is an incredible challenge for a Select Committee, and indeed Parliament, to really get into the nuts and bolts of the whole deal. It has been pointed out that CRaG lasts for 21 days and we are now on day 15. The good news is that when we asked for a debate, the Department was keen to table one, so we got a debate. It is worth bearing in mind that, for Select Committee members trying to look into these documents—although we were given them a week earlier than anybody else, which was very helpful—when they sit down on a Friday afternoon and see an impact assessment, a parliamentary report, an explanatory memorandum and 57 documents, it is a huge amount to get through. It certainly messes up one’s weekend.
That means it is incredibly important that we get a huge amount of feedback from everybody else who is being affected by this. As I say, it is very good that the Department has been open with us, but the scrutiny is none the less quite a challenge. We have to think carefully, as we come to more complicated deals, about how we will be able to do it. As I say, however, the Secretary of State has been very flexible, and I am sure that we will have an opportunity to talk to her about it in future.
I do not particularly want to go into the content of the deal, but there is a point to be made about how trade deals are incredibly important in how they lean on one another. The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) mentioned the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Certainly, when Mike Hawes came in, I had the opportunity to ask him whether, if we did not get a trade deal with the European Union, that would affect Japanese manufacturers in the UK, to which his answer was that he did not think so. Certainly when I was a Minister looking after that sector, I was acutely aware of that.
The bottom line is that those manufacturers have been in the UK for 25 or 30 years—a long time—so they are not going to get up and leave. It is incredibly important, however, to remember that trade deals lean on one another and people need to have confidence in future relationships. It is also worth bearing in mind that, when we do a deal with Japan, that makes us more attractive to those who might come to the UK to export to Japan. If we join CPTPP, the same applies. We have to understand that all trade deals have more implications than perhaps the immediate economic impact that people look at.
Many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will finish by thanking the Department again for its co-operation with the Select Committee. If it carries on like this, we will have an extraordinarily wholesome and good relationship.

Alex Sobel: We know that this deal is almost a carbon copy of the EU-Japan deal. We can discuss the ironies of this Government plagiarising the EU’s work on another occasion. However, I would like to focus on the small but significant differences and what they might mean for the UK.
We will undoubtedly hear a lot of concern about digital rights today, and it would be remiss of me not to voice my concerns and the concerns of my constituents—I am also a graduate of the School of Computing at the University of Leeds—about what the deal means for data privacy. The deal allows for the
“free flow of data between Japan and the UK”,
and from there on to other trade partners, undermining existing data protection frameworks.
Perhaps most concerningly, this means our data being transferred to a range of countries, including the USA, and obviously the other countries that have recently signed the CPTPP. US data protection laws are some of the weakest in the western world. There is no federal oversight, just a patchwork of state enforcement models. By allowing data to be sold off to the US, the Government are removing the right of UK citizens to know where their data is held and for what purpose. We will not be able to stop our data being used in discriminatory ways, and we will not be able to have it deleted. This could well undermine the provisions of the online harms Bill that the Government plan to lay before the House.
It is also worth noting that despite e-commerce and online retail being wrapped up in digital tech services, they are not mentioned in the deal. Instead, the deal only specifically refers to FinTech, which gives us a crucial clue about the Government’s plans. FinTech firms, usually backed by venture capitalists, are necessarily globalised. The deal fails to support small start-ups or  individuals. It tells us what we already know: the Conservatives are not the party of business, they are the party of the financial elites. This deal does not create a level playing field.
The lack of concrete and enforceable environmental and sustainable provisions is another real concern of mine. This deal was a golden opportunity to outline and to aspire to establish world-leading practices as both countries work to reduce their carbon emissions to zero by 2050, and to lay the groundwork for COP26 in Glasgow. How many golden opportunities on the climate are the Government prepared to squander in the run-up to COP?
I think it is fair to say that the natural environment is at best an afterthought here. Little consideration was made of the deal’s effect on biodiversity, which is particularly pertinent as we export more agricultural goods and import large quantities of chemicals and plastics. There is an over-reliance on future technologies to excuse the potential increase in carbon emissions caused by international trade. This is worrying, and yet to be addressed.
Japan’s track record on animal welfare and sustainability is shaky, to say the least. Last year, it resumed catching whales for profit in defiance of international criticism, yet the majority of the environmental provisions in this deal are non-enforceable. Flimsy, unenforceable terms present a real barrier to upholding high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. The Conservatives promised us in their manifesto that they would not compromise on that, so why are they compromising on it in this first deal?

Matt Rodda: Does my hon. Friend perhaps notice a pattern emerging here? We have seen the Agriculture Bill, and the widespread concern about chlorinated chicken and other abhorrent practices. We have heard today of the deep concern about some of the things that are happening in Japan. While we obviously welcome the deal, does he agree that there is a pattern emerging of the Government putting serious environmental concerns at the back of the list of the matters they are addressing in these deals?

Alex Sobel: I do agree with my hon. Friend. I sat on the Environment Bill Committee many months ago, when the Bill first came in and before there was a huge pause, and this was also clear in relation to that Bill, so we are seeing a pattern across these Bills and these deals.
Moving on to the wider ambitions of the Government, I would like to ask—I see that the Secretary of State is leaving her place, but perhaps the Minister for Trade Policy will respond—whether this is the first step towards joining the regional comprehensive economic partnership, or just clearing the way to become a member of or a signatory to the CPTPP through the British overseas territory of the Pitcairn Islands.

Jonathan Edwards: From my understanding of the trans-Pacific partnership, it includes very strict provisions on state aid and an investor-state dispute resolution mechanism, both of which mean conceding a great deal of sovereignty. Does it not just go to show that the great Brexit slogans of “take back control” and “a global Britain” are inherently contradictory?

Alex Sobel: The provisions of the investor-state dispute settlement are exceedingly worrying. We have seen previous trade deals founder on them because they give private entities a whip hand over Government and the state. We are meant to be taking back control, not handing it to private courts.
Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me on the points I have raised about his ambitions towards the CPTPP and the RCEP through that great overseas territory, the Pitcairn islands—which qualifies as it is in the Pacific.
Ultimately, we have to ask what kind of deal we want. Do we want a deal that puts the data privacy and security of the everyday person at its heart, or one that furthers British financial services? Do we want a deal that protects the natural environment or one that encourages lower standards? I would ask the Government to do better in future.

Martin Vickers: After the rather negative contributions from the Opposition, I hope to make a more positive case. I congratulate the Secretary of State and the ministerial and negotiating teams on achieving the deal, and it is nice to know that, as a post-Brexit free sovereign nation, we can manage to conclude such a worthwhile deal.
As a member of the International Trade Committee, I have had the opportunity to scrutinise the agreement in detail and can assure the House that it is a significant improvement on what we previously had via the EU. I can also assure hon. Members that food standards, animal welfare and so on will not be compromised.
As we move forward, the Opposition might be accused of moving the goalposts in their assessment of the deal. Prior to the announcement of the historic agreement, critics of the UK negotiating team claimed that we were not able to secure a deal as good as the EU’s. Now that we have a deal, the same people complain that it is only on a par with the EU’s. I can assure the House that they were wrong to be pessimistic in the first instance, and they are wrong about the result in the second. It is certainly true that we have replicated key elements of the EU-Japan deal, and that provides much-needed continuity and certainty to UK businesses involved in trade. However, this is a deal tailored to the UK economy, which secures additional benefits beyond what the EU was able to secure.
The most notable differences can be seen in the provisions on digital, data and financial services. Those are areas in which the UK already has a very strong comparative advantage, so the deal represents a significant boost to British business. The City of London Corporation labelled those provisions “a major achievement”. In some areas, we have agreed to implement the same measures as the EU but on a faster time scale, such as the 21 industrial tariff lines that will be eliminated under the CEPA immediately, in January. Another example is the immediate withdrawal of UK duties on two tariff lines relating to electronic control panels for electric vehicles, which will not be eliminated until 2024 under the EU agreement.
The UK is a trading nation; 64% of our GDP comes from imports and exports. I understand that the Department for International Trade has identified around £88 million-worth of trade with Japan that could gain from lower  tariffs, owing to more liberal rules of origin. Those new rules, which again go beyond what the EU has in place, will be a big bonus to the many British businesses that import products in order to add value to them in  some way.
In respect of visas, the International Trade Committee concluded that the CEPA represents an improvement on the JEPA in a number of respects. Financial services represents one of the areas in which we have made significant strides beyond the Japan-EU agreement. UK suppliers will now be able to offer new financial services on the same basis as Japanese suppliers in all modes of supply, whereas the JEPA only allows for one mode. That is an improvement. A further example relates to the joint UK-Japan Financial Regulatory Forum. That is an improvement on the EU deal, which only gave the UK indirect representation. From next January the UK will be its own representative, on an equal footing with our partners. The House can be reassured that those improvements have been widely welcomed by industry.
On digital trade and data, the UK has negotiated more ambitious provisions. Industry can be assured that the agreement also goes well beyond the EU deal in respect of intellectual property, where provisions are in place to protect trademarks and copyright. We have also got a better deal for geographical indicators. Japan has 55 products that it wants to get on to the UK register, and we have 70 products—including, of course, traditional Grimsby smoked haddock, vital to my constituency and its neighbours.
The UK-Japan agreement creates a working group for co-operation in the field of agriculture. That contrasts with the EU by producing a system involving fewer administrative burdens and allowing greater flexibility while maintaining appropriate decision making. Reference was made earlier to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia. As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the western Balkans, I can assure Members that negotiations are continuing and I am pretty confident of success. Free trade is the foundation of this country’s prosperity and I can assure the House that we want more free trade. This agreement provides the opportunities.

John Spellar: I am pleased to be making this speech in this debate tonight—I was hoping to make it last night. I declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the all-party group on Japan. May I also take slight issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who criticised some parts of the agreement for plagiarism? Personally, I think plagiarism is much underestimated. I am very much with Tom Lehrer:
“Plagiarize! Plagiarize. Let no one else’s work evade your eyes…Only be sure always to call it please ‘research’.”
I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) in welcoming the agreement while recognising that there is considerable work still to be done. I will come back to that point in a minute.
My interest in Japan—I am pleased to see the chairman of the all-party group on Japan, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), in his place— primarily stems from working in the electricians’ union. We were involved with many of the Japanese electronic and car companies that came in, bringing not just  product but a whole new mindset to engineering and manufacturing. Mention has been made of Margaret Thatcher bringing Nissan to Sunderland, which has been a huge boost to that region, along with Toyota and Honda—although Honda, unfortunately, will be departing in the near future. There is a book about Toyota, “The Machine that Changed the World”. Toyota certainly changed the British motor industry. It had an enormous effect on the success of the industry, which has driven much of our engineering. We all benefited from that engagement and involvement. The trade union movement was also involved in a way that, very often in those days, did not happen with British companies.
I want the Government to look not just at the agreement, but at the follow through. I wish they would show concern about that. Hitachi came to Newton Aycliffe and built a major train manufacturing unit, employing large numbers of people, but who did we give the next agreement for trains to? To Siemens, which did not have any manufacturing capability in the UK. We need much more joined-up government. That is what other countries, particularly Japan but many others, expect of us.
There was mention of Canada and New Zealand. The detail is very important, and I fully accept many of the key points that have been made, but so is the context. Trade is important for economies, but it also binds together countries and societies. That is why the role of the Japanese embassy here, and the work of Paul Madden and the British embassy in Japan, is enormously important in establishing cultural and economic links, building unity among liberal and economically liberal industrial societies. That is very important in relation to Japan. We have looked at the work being done in industry and in Japanese finance houses here, but also many specialist companies.
We have many things in common with Japan. We are both island peoples with limited national resources. Both of our countries have had to live on the ingenuity and technology of our people and our nations. Incidentally, there seems to be a liking for rugby and the Japanese have had great success in rugby. We both like beer, to the extent that they even bought Fuller’s brewery, and we drink tea. However, with the autocracies around the world flexing their muscles and engaging together, the unity of liberal democracies around the world is enormously important. Trade deals are a significant part of that, and we therefore need to be working together with not only Japan and the other major countries, but those countries that wish to join that democratic caucus. Otherwise, the rules of not only world trade, but international engagement and society will be set by the autocracies. That will not be good for our country and it will not be good for the world.

Craig Williams: As a member of the Select Committee on International Trade, I will try to keep my comments brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) summed up the thanks the Committee wishes to give the Front-Bench team for the access given. It is interesting to see the CRaG—Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—process in action, given that this debate had been asked for. The fears we heard from Opposition Members about the inadequacy of the CRaG process are clearly not being  met in this trade debate. The report was interesting; we looked at those documents and discussed this process with other members of the Committee. We have fed back to the Front-Bench team about areas of possible improvement, but I wish to reinforce our thanks for the openness we saw.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and his talk about trade links and trade lines. I echo the tribute paid to both embassies for the work they put in behind the scenes and in front of the scenes on this trade deal. I was also reminiscing, as a Welsh Member, about how terrific the Japanese were in hosting the rugby world cup, and their match against England was one to remember.
As chair of the all-party group on international trade and investment, I completely agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on liberalisation. This is an important milestone as we emerge from the tentacles of the European Union and set out on to the open stage with our own trade deals. It sets again an independent trading story of this island nation, and I certainly want to see that greater liberalisation. He espoused it far better than I can, so I will move on.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) is not in his place, but he accused us of plagiarising the EU treaty and of lowering standards. I say gently that we can either have copied the EU treaty or be doing something differently, but I am not sure that both lines of attack work in the same paragraph.
As a rural Member of Parliament, I wish to reflect on the agricultural nature of these trade deals. I know that my local farmers will particularly take heart from the tone of this continuity extra trade deal. They will be looking at what they can achieve through this sector. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) touched on the potential for Wales, and trade between Wales and Japan has been growing at a terrific rate. Two companies in my constituency, Nidec and Invertek, are thriving under new Japanese ownership, and I can only see these bonds strengthening.

Jonathan Edwards: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited, I am sure he will agree that most Welsh farmers this evening will be looking at the cut of nearly a third in agriculture support that they now face as a result of today’s comprehensive spending review. That is a far bigger issue than the Japan-UK trade deal.

Craig Williams: I would not want to be told off by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as often happens to me in these debates. I will not make accusations about anything that will get me in trouble with you, but if Members look at the detail of the funding supplied by the UK Government and topped up from the EU to the Welsh Government direct, they will see that the Welsh Government and the Farmers Union of Wales need to be very careful with their accusations. We will take that aside after this debate. I wish to focus on the growth of that trade, which has been terrific. It was £250 million in 2018 and we are talking about a 25% increase year on year. Our relationship and that of our companies with Japan is growing. It is hugely welcome, and it is reinforced by this trade deal.
I will finish by commenting on the GIs. It is brilliant to see not just the greatest lamb product in the world, Welsh lamb, recognised in these trade deals, but also the Anglesey sea salt, the Conwy mussels, the west Wales salmon and, of course, the plums from the Vale of Clwyd. They will be going through the normal process, of course, but it is great to see this on the face of these agreements. It is incredibly encouraging. On deals such as these, Opposition Members were incredibly sceptical that we could ever get anything on a par with the EU deal. Their attacks have moved on, and we now have something that is superior. I have no doubt that these deals will continue.

Taiwo Owatemi: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate as a Member who serves on the International Trade Committee. I would like to start by congratulating the Secretary of State and the Department for International Trade on what they have achieved. However, I have concerns that I would like the Department to address, and I will come to those in a moment. As we know, CEPA is the UK’s first bilateral trade agreement of its kind, and it therefore lays crucial precedents for the future trade agreements that the UK will eventually enter into. There are several aspects of CEPA that improve on its predecessor, JEPA. This is true, for example, of how CEPA treats the rules of origin of manufactured goods. Previously, there were stricter limitations on what could be considered UK- manufactured goods.
CEPA also provides for the so-called extended cumulation of manufactured parts made in the EU and placed in UK and Japanese goods. This change makes it easier for inputs from non-EU third countries to count as being of UK origin, and this will enable UK producers of those goods to diversify their supply chain. However—and it is a big however—the EU may challenge this shift, to the long-term detriment of the automotive industry, and as third-party cumulation will be crucial in producing electric vehicles, I believe that the Secretary of State should consider how a challenge to third-party cumulation could impact the automotive industry’s expansion into electric car manufacturing.
There are sections of CEPA that require further clarification, and prominent among them, as we have heard, are the rules governing data protection. That is an area in which CEPA departs from JEPA. There are concerns that provisions relating to cross-border data flow could have negative implications for our NHS, for example, and I ask the Minister to clarify how those restrictions could potentially harm NHS data storage and sharing.
I would also like to raise my concern over the provision relating to the UK’s future accession to the CPTPP. In the short term, the Government have promised to assent to a partnership that would give the UK access to some of the CPTPP tariff quotas and, by extension, access to more competitive export markets. However, the Secretary of State has indicated that that tariff scheme is a temporary arrangement that will expire in 2024, at which time it will be assumed that the UK will join the CPTPP. However, if the UK’s accession to the CPTPP takes longer than the Government predict, or if it ceases to be a high-priority objective, will the UK lose access to those advantageous tariff quotas?
I am also concerned about how the Government modelled CEPA’s impact on our annual GDP. The Government estimate a resulting 0.09% GDP increase in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Will the Minister clarify whether that increase would be due to higher projected barriers to trade between the UK and the EU, resulting in more potential trade with Japan, or whether it would be due to the negative impact on UK GDP growth of the UK and EU not concluding a trade agreement?
On a more general note, CEPA currently lacks any guidelines requiring imports to meet UK standards of animal welfare. As it stands, the agreement may create problems for our farmers and agricultural standards when it comes to agreements with other priority trading partners, particularly Australia and the United States. So when the Minister rises to his feet, I hope he will tell us whether the Government will re-evaluate that section on animal welfare, bearing this concern in mind. Finally, it is important to note that the time given to the Committee to scrutinise CEPA was very limited. I understand that there is pressure to pass CEPA with all urgency, but we should not sacrifice the thoroughness of a process this important for the sake of expediency. It is vital that Parliament should be given an appropriate amount of time, and indeed more time than the task requires, for future agreements.

Jeremy Hunt: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who does formidable work on the Health and Social Care Committee. I normally see her through a screen, so it is nice to hear her in person.
I particularly want to congratulate the Secretary of State for International Trade, although I know that she is not in the Chamber right now. Getting this deal is a personal triumph for her, and it gives great confidence to the country that this Government will be able to negotiate the formidable number of deals we need in the post-Brexit era. She is being fantastically supported by the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), and it has to be said that they are building on the excellent foundations laid by the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). He is one of the most formidable advocates of free trade that this House has ever known, certainly since the days of Margaret Thatcher. It was excellent to hear his comments earlier.
I am speaking today as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Japan, which, with 93 members, is the second-largest country all-party group in the House of Commons. That is testament to the great interest in Japan among hon. Members. I am proud to have that role, because I lived in Japan for two years in my 20s. I worked there, learned the language and fell in love with the country to such an extent that I once memorably accused my Chinese wife of being Japanese, something she has never allowed me to forget.
The genius of Japan is the people’s humility and willingness to learn, their decency and civility, and their work ethic. Of course, it is a country that has tremendous respect for the past but is able to combine that with an active embrace of modernity. For our purposes in this House, it also has what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset talked about: the tremendous support  for western liberal values for which Japan is a beacon in east Asia, a part of the world where those values are not universally shared. That is why this trade deal has a lot more significance than simply the increase in trade that we are looking forward to.
None the less, that increase in trade is important. I have personal experience of that, because anyone who remembers last summer’s leadership contest, which now feels rather a long time ago, may have picked up that I used to be an entrepreneur. I have not had an opportunity to say that on the Floor of the House before. Hon. Members may not know that my very first venture was an attempt to export marmalade to Japan. It was not terribly successful; in fact, it was a complete flop. I managed to export half a container load of Frank Cooper’s “Oxford” marmalade to Japan before the market rather dried up. I realise now what I did not realise at the time, which is that what was missing was a fantastic trade deal to give me all the encouragement I needed to ship that marmalade to Japan.
My marmalade exporting days are sadly behind me, but I know that an army of younger entrepreneurs are willing to take up the baton. As they embrace those opportunities alongside many other entrepreneurs, we will be proud to know that we are strengthening our relationship with a country that is our best possible strategic ally. That is why this deal is such a triumph for the International Trade Secretary, her Minister and their team.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I, too, sit on the International Trade Committee and our report outlined the positives in this deal. There were also many things we just could not quantify, because the Government have not given us the figures, or they do not want to do that analysis, so we just do not know how things will pan out in the future. This is the first run at this.
My first point is about the role of parliamentary scrutiny. This is very much the first run and we need to deepen and strengthen parliamentary scrutiny. We have the weakest parliamentary scrutiny of the major bodies that we now want to negotiate with. Japan and the Japanese Parliament will have longer debates, binding votes and a guaranteed vote to accept sections, the European Union will of course be able to have discussions through the negotiations and will vote section by section, and the US will be able to vote section by section on the deal and will be involved in setting up the framework of the negotiations.

Greg Hands: indicated dissent.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: The Minister shakes his head; I am happy to send him a constitutional 101 of all those countries, because the fact is that we have one of the least developed parliamentary scrutiny systems. Of course we do, because we have not done it for 40 years and other countries have developed since then, but we do need to develop, and it is no good the Minister shaking his head on these points.
The other thing I would say is that, although I welcome the Department giving the International Trade Committee a two-week head start on these documents, I have here in my hand just one volume of the documents,  and three of the annexes never arrived in time and were only given to my office a few days before they were publicly released. It is all well and good, and I understand these are working documents, but that cannot be a continued pattern for how these things work; we need to be involved earlier, and we need to be involved throughout.
On the content of the deal, let’s be honest: many of the clauses we have heard celebrated today are non-binding or worse, or are being exaggerated. The workers’ rights sections are of course all totally non-binding; the climate change sections are non-binding and weak; the women and trade section—a new section—is all totally non-binding in the agreement. There is no section on consumer standards, and Which? says to me that it has not been involved much at all in these discussions. It believes there need to be whole sections on consumer standards, and the agreement fails to do that.
Also, in many areas there are standstill clauses that embed the current system we have in Britain and do not allow change. For example, there is a standstill clause on the Post Office; that means if a future Government wanted to change their mind on the disastrous privatisation by this Government of the Post Office that put money into their crony friends who bought the shares which then zoomed up—[Interruption.] It is true, and we would not be able to reverse that without renegotiating this deal. That is an inhibition of sovereignty, and that is a problem.
This deal is also reliant on the EU deal. If we do not get an EU deal, there are some clauses in this deal that will not be enacted fully; there is also a danger that the deal might be a green light for offshoring many jobs out of Britain, as there will be an EU-Japan deal and a UK-Japan deal. But if there is no UK-EU deal, businesses will place themselves in Japan because they will access both markets from there. If we do not get that EU deal, this deal could be an offshoring charter.
The TRQs are a scraps-on-the-table deal, under which the EU of course gets first dibs and if there are crumbs left—we hope there will be crumbs left, for a few more years anyway, until we sign the CPTPP—then we can get those crumbs. We cannot get the crumbs beforehand of course; and in terms of developing innovation, businesses cannot rely on them because they do not know what amount of crumbs will be left over. We have heard that Government analysis of the EU-Japan deal conducted when it was signed shows that the deal will have a worse economic outcome rather than a better one: there will be £1.7 billion less in exports with this deal than under the EU deal, and £1.6 billion less in GDP with this deal compared with how much the EU-Japan deal was benefiting us. Those are the Government’s figures, not my figures.
There are also some very dangerous elements on data protection, including voluntary agreements rather than binding agreements, not least in areas such as data protection and the NHS. That should greatly worry many people.

Neil Parish: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) being able to export marmalade under this new deal. May I assure him that my daughter-in-law is most definitely Japanese? I just want to make  that absolutely clear. I agree with the points that have been made about the liberal democracy in Japan now and the need for us to co-operate and build on that across the world, especially in Asia.
I thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), the Chair of the International Trade Committee, for his great co-operation, for allowing me to guest on the Committee and for the work he has put into scrutinising this trade deal with Japan. I also thank the members of the Committee for allowing me to guest on that Committee and for putting up with me as we debated this. It has been a very interesting experience to monitor the deal through the Committee and to see how another Select Committee works. It may—dare I say it?—give me some ideas for my own Select Committee.
I thank the Secretary of State for her engagement on scrutiny and her commitment to amend the Agriculture Bill, to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission in legislation. I look forward to the Government publishing that amendment, which they have yet to do. The independent Trade and Agriculture Commission will be important in helping MPs to scrutinise new trade deals, whether with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US or Brazil. We need to ensure that Parliament has a proper opportunity to debate and scrutinise trade deals, and I hope that the Trade Bill will strengthen that process when it comes back from the other place. I welcome the deal that we have agreed with Japan.

Kerry McCarthy: Does the hon. Member share my concern that animal welfare standards are generally lower in Japan and that this agreement does not replicate the FTAs that have better, stronger animal welfare provisions? Does he agree that we could and ought to do more to protect ourselves against lower standards of imports from Japan?

Neil Parish: When the hon. Lady served on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, she always worked hard on animal welfare. I think that we can get improvements, which is why it is essential to have the Trade and Agriculture Commission up and running to scrutinise these deals as they are put in place. The issue is that once a trade deal gets to the Floor of the House, we can scrutinise it, but it is very difficult to change it, so work has to be put in through the negotiations to get that trade deal right. There can be improvements on animal welfare.
It is essential that thae continuity agreement preserves the tariff reductions we enjoy as part of the EU trade deal. We must ensure that we can increase our access to quotas from Japan, because we can export more of some agricultural products to Japan than we have in the present agreement. This is welcome news for agrifood businesses that export to Japan, but it could have been a bit more ambitious on exporting our excellent British food into Japan. Japan is the largest net importer of agrifood products worldwide, as it lacks enough agricultural land to feed its population, importing about 60% of its food, so there is a huge advantage in trading with Japan.
In future, we will have to boost exports of even more of our great food. It is in our interests to use the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and the levy payers who pay every time they process lamb, beef and milk and get those people out to do those trade deals. We need to build on the great links that our  Government have with the industry, and I particularly welcome the engagement with businesses about what they need through the Trade and Agriculture Commission.
To conclude, I welcome the agreement. I thank the International Trade Committee again for its scrutiny of the deal. I hope to see a lot more of the Secretary of State and her team on the Floor of the House and in Committee telling the House what brilliant deals we have signed and allowing us enough time to scrutinise them. The Government have set an excellent precedent by coming to the House and having a proper debate on this deal, and I look forward to having a debate on all future trade deals.

Damian Collins: I rise in support of the trade agreement that has been reached with Japan, and I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State on their efforts to secure this very important deal. In terms of scrutiny of the process, I have been grateful that the Minister’s door has always been open to my questions, particularly about digital and data policy relating to trade agreements, whether this agreement or the other agreements currently being negotiated. I note that he offered last week to write to me with a detailed note setting out the differences in data and digital policy between this trade agreement with Japan versus the EU-Japan trade agreement.
The Government have been clear that this is an enhanced deal. I welcome anything that increases the scope for digital trade in this country, because it is incredibly important to our future growth. These are industries of the future, and the UK is a world-leading nation, but I raise an issue that is important for this agreement and for other agreements as well, which is the scrutiny of data and digital policy as it is concluded in trade agreements. It would be worth while to have an opportunity to scrutinise the reports from the Information Commissioner on digital agreements, because the commissioner is responsible for the enforcement of our data protection rights.
I note as well that the Government say that there are high levels of data protection in this agreement, but this agreement means that UK data can be processed by data processors in Japan, rather than that having to be done here. We know that Japan has a data agreement with the US, which allows the free flow of data between Japan and the US, so people will naturally ask, “Does that mean that UK citizens’ data could end up, via Japan, being processed in the US, outside UK data protection laws?” I know that is not what the Government or the Minister want, and I am sure there are safeguards to ensure that cannot happen, but nevertheless those are natural concerns that people raise. If a company was processing UK data in America, having routed that through Japan in breach of the agreement and our laws, it could be very difficult for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take enforcement action. It is perfectly right that people ask those questions, and I certainly think the ICO could have a role in allaying such fears and concerns.
This is important in the context of other trade agreements because we know that the big technology companies, particularly through their trade bodies, are actively lobbying for trade agreements to be used to lock in more liberalisation of data policy and of how data is handled and processed around the world. In America, they have lobbied successfully for the US-Japan trade  agreement and the US-Canada-Mexico trade agreements to abide by the section 230 provisions in US law, which give immunity for tech companies in how they process and handle content. That is contrary to the rules and regulations we have here.
I have discussed this with the Minister many times, and it is not something I would want to see in a UK-US trade agreement. If the House said, “We would rather have data protection laws that are more like America’s than the EU’s,” that is a matter for the House to decide and for legislation to be passed to do that. It is not the route I would want to go down, but it should not be the role of trade agreements to try to lock in the changes.
The Minister will know that there has been considerable criticism in the US Congress of the Trump Administration using trade agreements in that way to try to set domestic policy in this area. That should rightly be the role of Parliaments, not trade agreements. I have expressed to the Minister my concern that if the current US proposals for a US-UK trade agreement were accepted, we would also have to take this measure on board, which would massively restrict our ability to legislate on things such as online harms. It would potentially undermine such things as the age-appropriate design code to protect children online. I know that is not what the Minister wants. The Government have resisted those efforts, and I hope that President-elect Biden’s Administration will review the terms offered by the American Government in that trade agreement and change them.
I raise this today because the Government’s intention is clear to ensure that we keep high levels of data protection. Any changes to our data protection laws should be something that Parliament votes and legislates on, but there are forces at work who want to use trade agreements to try to change the global norms, and we do not really have a global system for monitoring and policing the movement and use of citizens’ data. Data is the new oil of the economy, so it is important that people know what their rights are and how they can be enforced around the world and that trade agreements do not affect that.

Stephen Flynn: It would be remiss of me not to start my remarks by touching on some of the connections of my city with Japan, because they are long and special. Where else to start other than with Thomas Blake Glover? We have heard numerous examples of fantastic Japanese companies that have borne huge success. Mitsubishi has not been mentioned, but Mitsubishi is indeed one of those, and one of its founding pioneers was Thomas Blake Glover. Thomas Blake Glover House is situated just north of the idyllic Brig o’ Balgownie in Aberdeen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), and it is my understanding that Thomas Blake Glover went to school in Old Aberdeen, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). It is important that we reflect on the cultural significance.

Andrew Bowie: It would be remiss of us not to speak up for my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who cannot speak, but is itching to do so, because, of course, Thomas Blake Glover did in fact originate from Fraserburgh in Banff and Buchan. I just thought that I would put that on the record.

Stephen Flynn: I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. He is absolutely correct. Thomas Blake Glover did indeed originate from Fraserburgh, but his house is in the Bridge of Don. Hopefully, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) will have discussions with his colleagues in the Conservative-led council in Aberdeen, and we can perhaps get the house fitted back up from its dilapidated state as it stands at present.
The cultural links between Aberdeen and Japan do not stop there. They also extend to the Scottish Samurai awards, which I am sure my colleagues are also aware of. They were founded by Mr Ronnie Watt, who I believe is a 9th dan in karate. Ronnie managed not only to bring forward the Scottish Samurai awards, which have been a tremendous success story for Scotland, but to bring the World Karate Championships to Aberdeen.
Ultimately, this entire debate is about trade. In that regard, it is important to reflect on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith). Is it worth it? Again, I will look at matters from a particular Aberdeen perspective, because, of course, Japan has a trade deal with the EU and much of what has been brought forward by the Government—in fact, almost all of what has been brought forward by the Government —is a replication of that trade deal. We are leaving the European Union—indeed, we have left it—and the impact of that on my city will be enormous. Aberdeen is projected to be the hardest hit city in the entire UK as a result of Brexit. Gross value added is expected to reduce in Aberdeen by around 3% on the basis of a hard Brexit. Since 2016, Warwick University has outlined that around £9,000 per head of population has been lost in Aberdeen from investment.
Let me provide some further context. My city is bearing the brunt of an oil and gas sector price crash. It is also bearing the brunt of a 75% drop-off in job vacancies. Universal credit claimants doubled between March and September, and we are obviously still facing the challenges of covid.
When we look at that wider context and we look at the damage that Brexit will do to Aberdeen, we have to weigh that up against another figure—0.07%. That is what this trade deal is estimated to bring to the UK economy. It is an absolute drop in the ocean compared with the damage that this Government will do to my city and to my country. I am utterly appalled by it. Quite frankly, they should be apologising to the people of Aberdeen for disregarding their democratic views and, alongside that, disregarding the views of the people of Scotland.
Of course this trade deal is not just about the trade deal in itself; it is obviously a precursor to the Government’s intended plan to join the CPTPP, which is all good and well, but I caution the Government in that regard because, as I am sure they are aware, Canadian exports to Japan dropped between 2018 and 2019, while, of course, being members of CPTPP. This is not all about the land of milk and honey—far from it. You know what, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do wish the Government well. I wish them well in trying to secure better trade deals. We support trade deals. They are a complete necessity, but, ultimately, at some point very soon, Scotland will choose a different path where we can define our own trading future.

Jonathan Djanogly: Accounting for 2% of UK total exports in 2018, Japan is the UK’s fourth largest export market. By size alone, it is an important one for this country to have secured an FTA with, and our Ministers are to be congratulated on that achievement. However, it is important that consideration is given to what constitutes success or levels of success when looking at this deal, against which later deals will be judged. Do we measure success by jobs secured or jobs to be gained, by tariffs saved or regulations avoided—or is it political, defence or strategic gains, all of which can directly or indirectly come out of a trade deal? In this regard, I have seen reports that complain that the Government have, for the most part, only got the same as the existing EU deal with Japan; the Opposition also said that earlier. That is somewhat harsh, as the Government’s stated objective was to roll over existing EU FTAs. If they have done so, in my book they have met their objective.
Having said that, we still need to understand and set out the parameters for future FTA measurements of success. The speed of negotiations with Japan has been frenetic. We should look again at the timetable and learn whether we can make improvements on the timing of future FTA talks, including for scrutiny purposes. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that more could have been achieved at this stage with more time.
I declare any interest that I may have as a non-practising solicitor, but it is clear that recognition of professional qualifications with Japan has simply failed to happen in the way in which services’ representative organisations had asked for. Will this now be addressed, or will services continue to be treated as the poor relation of manufacturing as we progress with other FTAs? Given that services account for 51% of our trade with Japan, this is an important issue.
The Government have stated their intention that this Japan FTA should act as a stepping stone to the UK acceding to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. With 13.5% of global GDP and 495 million consumers, this clearly is a big deal. Of course, the CPTPP’s predecessor was the trans-Pacific partnership, which was partly a US-inspired effort to marginalise China in the Pacific region. The US then withdrew from the TPP, and seemingly now may be replaced by China. This clearly raises many political, as well as trade, questions. I think that the Government will need to set out their case here at the earliest opportunity. How is this likely to affect our US FTA negotiations? How will we deal with regulatory issues such as the US-based agriculture regulations, which the CPTPP follows? Could this be a rare opportunity to create a new set of rules with China, such as on treatment of state-owned enterprises, and how does this impact on other CPTPP members that have varying levels of issues with China in trade, as well as security concerns?
Let me finish by heading back to the important issue of scrutiny, process and approval. The Minister will know full well my amendment to the Trade Bill requesting parliamentary approval for FTAs between agreement and signature. We can go through any processes we like, but the bottom line is that this Japan deal had to be  approved by a vote in the Japanese Parliament, and that is not the case in the UK. A version of my amendment is currently in the other place, and I wish it well.
A further set of Trade Bill amendments is aimed at modernising the antiquated CRaG system, which currently enables, but does not demand, votes on treaty ratification. CRaG does not allow Parliament to stop a treaty as Ministers have previously suggested, but only to delay ratification for 21 days at a time. I note that the Government maintain that the speed of the Japan negotiations did not allow regular updates to Parliament via written ministerial statement. I also note that the EU Committee in the other place has suggested a process for the sharing of FTA documents before laying them formally. Is the Minister going to accept this common-sense proposal? Likewise, there have been some very late stage letters—sent, I think, in October—from the Secretary of State to Lord Goldsmith and the International Trade Committee setting out a proposed scrutiny system process. Clearly, more needs to be done in this area and it would be good to hear the Minister’s comments on that this evening, but I would not wish to detract from the importance of this deal to the UK and the further opportunities that it will open for us looking forward.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). I will pick up where he left off—on the question of the scrutiny of this agreement and others that are yet to come. He is absolutely right; we are very much in the early stages of feeling our way back into this business. I hope that, for future trade agreements, we will see something rather more substantial and detailed than on this occasion.
To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish),surely it should be possible for this House to play a more front-loaded role in relation to scrutiny, because waiting until a signed deal is, in essence, presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis is somewhat unsatisfactory. There must be an opportunity for the various Select Committees of this House to engage, follow and scrutinise future deals as they come forward. But that is all for the future; we are where we are and it is welcome that we even have this debate.
It is significant that we have a deal with Japan, which is a significant trading partner: it is the world’s 11th biggest trading nation and our fourth biggest export market. It will be a matter of significant relief to the salmon farmers in my constituency in Orkney and Shetland, for whom Japan is an important export market, that we have a deal of this sort that means they will be able to trade without tariffs.
It is also welcome that we have a continuation of the very important protected geographic indicators. The continued protection for Scotch whisky is supremely important for Scotland and for the UK as a whole, and I am delighted to see that. Of course, it is a continuation of what we already have; it is also important that we continue to have protection for Orkney beef, Orkney lamb, Shetland lamb, Shetland organic wool and one other that escapes my mind at the moment—I know there are five of them in total. I apologise for the offence that I have caused to that particular sector in my constituency. It is Orkney cheddar, of course—and it is important because I am meeting its representatives tomorrow.
The protections given to those important local products are important, but it has to be said that Japan is not their biggest export market, so their producers will be looking for the successful conclusion of a deal with the EU sometime between now and the end of the year, because that market will matter to us. For example, for decades now Orkney cheddar producers have, at the encouragement of Governments of all colours, moved towards participation in that export market and produced a higher-quality product as a consequence. If they are now forced to compete on a different basis, and one for which tariffs will be payable, that will be a matter of great significance for them.
When we consider trade deals of this sort, it is sometimes important to think about exactly what impact they will have on the individual citizen, their daily lives and their rights, liberties and freedoms. In that regard, I hope that those on the Front Bench paid close attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) when he was talking about the data protection provisions. Data protection is squirrelled away; it is not in a substantive clause but in a footnote and that causes serious concern for him, me and many others from all parties in this House. The prospect of data being processed and somehow laundered for onward transmission—particularly to the United States of America, because Japan already has that agreement with the USA—should be a significant cause of concern for us all.
I also venture to suggest that if that provision is to be left unamended, it will make it very difficult for us to do a future deal with the European Union. I cannot see the European Union agreeing data transfer with us if the prospect remains of our transferring it to Japan for it then to be onward laundered. The Minister is frowning; I hope he has an answer when he comes to reply.

Anthony Mangnall: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for his speech. He speaks about fish, and he and I are universally aligned on the need to make sure that export markets are always open and available to our fishermen and that fine British fish is on the dinner table around the rest of the world.
I thank the House, or at least those on the Government side, for putting me on the International Trade Committee, on which it is a pleasure to serve. In the Committee’s most recent two or three sittings, I have had the opportunity to look at some level at the new deal that has been signed with Japan and what we can look forward to in future.
I do take the points that were raised about scrutiny, which are important. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made the exceptionally important point about the role the Trade and Agriculture Commission is going to have in future trade deals. I represent a constituency with a fine farming background, as well as a vibrant fishing community. We want to be able to make sure that our ag and trade commission is playing the role that it needs to to allow both the Committee and this House to have the full breadth of understanding of what each trade deal is doing before we debate it in the House. I know that Ministers have been competent in assuring us that that will happen.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) seemed quite happy to say that nothing was quantifiable and then to outline a whole load of figures that he felt were quantifiable just for his argument. Actually, the purpose of the International Trade Committee has been, so far, to look at those deals and scrutinise them in depth. If he is a slow reader, I apologise for that, but we are able to get through those documents. In this case, I do believe that the information that we were given was in good time and good order, and we have had the ability not only to scrutinise the information within this trade deal but to speak to the Secretary of State and to other Ministers and experts on the deal.
The value of this trade deal may easily be able to be seen now and in future in how we develop our relationship with the Japanese, but it should also be seen as a mark of confidence in the faith that they have in this country and its future. It should also be seen as the way in which we can have stronger political co-operation. The ambition to join the CPTPP is a fantastic one. As Japan is due to hold the presidency of that organisation in due course, I think we can look forward to a successful entry into that organisation and the UK playing a role in an enormously important part of the world.
Much of what I wanted to say has already been said. This deal rolls over some of the agreements that Japan had with the EU and that we now have with Japan. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, it protects geographical indicators. It also allows us to look at new export markets across the world. As a vote of confidence in what the UK can achieve both now and outside the European Union, we should look at the Bill for the success that it is, and we should build on the lessons that we have learned from this negotiation to make sure that future trade agreements, say with Canada and elsewhere, are as successful and beneficial to all corners of the United Kingdom.

Virginia Crosbie: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who is such an eloquent speaker.
As we stand on the precipice of 2020 and search for visions of 2021, many in this country are hopeful of a brighter future. Not only do we hope that 2021 will see a vaccine reignite the country’s economy, but we hope that our departure from the European Union will spark opportunities for businesses and return sovereignty to this great Chamber. One such opportunity is the ability to form new trade deals like the one we are discussing today. Economic opportunity has the potential not to just benefit a single business owner but to change the future of communities and generations.
In my constituency of Ynys Môn, economic opportunity has been lacking for decades. Underinvestment has seen our island’s GVA drop to one of the lowest in the UK, and only with significant effort can we turn this around. So far, the support from this Government has made it possible to save many jobs across Ynys Môn, and I know that the innovative Welsh people will continue to make best use of the opportunities made available to them.
The UK-Japan trade deal is set to build upon the 7.6% growth of UK exports to Japan that we saw last year. Welsh businesses contributed exported goods worth  about £300 million to Japan. Particularly important for Anglesey is the reduction of tariffs on agricultural products. The green fields of Ynys Môn are home to some of the finest cattle and sheep in our United Kingdom, and our farmers are some of the most ambitious. Getting to know farmers from NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales has been a privilege. Seeing the hard work they carry out and the determination they have makes this trade deal even more significant. Peter Williams, a local sheep farmer and chairman of the Anglesey show, said today:
“Japan offers new opportunities for farmers across the island.”
Last year, Welsh agricultural exports to Japan were worth £2 million, and now, with the reduction of tariffs, I am certain that we will see that accelerate. Families across Tokyo will be able to savour the same delicious Welsh lamb at the dinner table that is sold in Raymond’s the butchers next to my office in Holyhead. We also expect flagship products such as Welsh lamb and Halen Môn’s Anglesey sea salt to benefit from geographical indication protection in Japan as early as 2021. That will highlight the extraordinary dedication to quality that sets Welsh farmers apart from the rest of the world. The House should not just take my word for it; a business owner from Anglesey told me today:
“We were delighted to see that the UK has negotiated its first trade deal with Japan. Japan is a brilliant country to work with and the trust between our two countries ensures that the export process is straightforward. We look forward to continuing the development of our relationship with our Japanese importer. Growth in Japanese trade will definitely help safeguard Anglesey jobs.”
This Government and I made a promise to the people of Ynys Môn at the last election. We promised that we would deliver the jobs and investment that they needed to see real change in their community. This trade deal is just one of the many approaches we are taking to fulfil that commitment, and I look forward to seeing how producers across Anglesey make the most of this new opportunity.

Imran Ahmad Khan: It is a delight to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie).
May I first congratulate the Secretary of State—she is not in her place—on achieving a truly sterling landmark trade deal with Japan, the first of many outside the European Union? This deal sends a clarion call to the international community that the United Kingdom is once again a proud, sovereign, independent trading nation. This deal demonstrates how effective, pragmatic and nimble the mechanisms of government can be in dealing with constructive, like-minded nations in remarkably short timeframes. The House may compare and contrast.
In an increasingly multipolar and uncertain world, it is crucial that diplomatic links with our allies across the globe are underpinned by strong commercial foundations that produce benefits for all. Pessimists claimed that this deal would not be better than the one we could have achieved as part of the European Union. However, as now proven, that could not be further from the truth.
In the realm of data provision, the excellent team from DIT has secured a more comprehensive footing for UK firms operating in Japan, allowing them to innovate and expand their businesses. In financial services,  crucial gains have been made between Japanese and UK regulators, which will make conducting business easier for firms of both our nations. In the exchange of goods, tariffs have been removed to support jobs in the car and rail industries in the UK. Liberalisation of rules of origin regulations makes things far simpler and cheaper for British export producers. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing Scottish beef give Miyazaki’s own a run for its money.
I commend the British negotiating team for being constantly at the disposal of MPs throughout the negotiating period to ensure that input was received and progress monitored. Monthly cross-party sessions were held with Ministers in the Department for International Trade, the UK’s chief trade negotiation adviser, Crawford Falconer, and Graham Zebedee, who headed up the team, to respond comprehensively to questions that I and many parliamentary colleagues raised.
This is the first of many steps in repositioning the UK as a vital international trading power and signals an opportunity for the UK to enter into the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. Japan is a key ally, with which we have enjoyed a long history of friendship—an ally that has been a beacon of tolerance, pluralism and democracy in the post-war world. I am confident that we have a close friend and ally in the Liberal Democratic party Administration of Yoshihide Suga and am keen for our relationship with Japan to develop further, so that we may tackle key issues, notably climate change, national security and the global economic recovery, following the covid-19 pandemic.

Jo Gideon: Is it a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan), who is always most eloquent. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate at a historic moment for the UK as an independent trading nation, and I congratulate the Minister and the International Trade Secretary on doing this brilliant deal. It demonstrates that we are ready to start trading independently from the European Union with our allies across the world.
I have a particular interest in our relationship with Japan. Some years ago, I ran a small business importing handmade paper from around the world, and Japan provided products and the source of inspiration. I visited a number of times, once as part of a trade mission.
The deal is historic, not least because it is the first we have struck since constituencies such as mine voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union. It will create new and exciting opportunities for businesses in Stoke-on-Trent Central. For many UK businesses, Japan has traditionally been a challenging market to penetrate with multiple barriers to entry, but thanks to the agreement, many of those barriers have been eliminated. The cutting of red tape and removal of barriers between the two countries means that the agreement is a huge win for the more than 8,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK that already export goods to Japan, more than 700 of which are based in the west midlands.
With the free trade agreement in place, many more businesses stand to prosper. I want to encourage more local businesses to explore the opportunities that trading with Japan can offer. For example, an advanced ceramics  research and testing company in my constituency, Lucideon, has told me that the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement will support more than £1 million of commercial growth for it in the next 12 months. The agreement makes it easier for such companies to export and sell the knowledge and skills of their world-leading experts to the highly competitive and highly lucrative Japanese market. It also makes it easier for business people and skilled workers to travel between our two countries and gives British and Japanese workers more flexibility to move between them.

Jonathan Gullis: I thank my hon. Friend for her outstanding representation of Stoke-on-Trent. In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, I have the amazing Burleigh Pottery based in Middleport, which saw exports to Japan grow by 60% last year, worth £250,000. Does she agree that this is a fine deal not just for advanced ceramics, but for our traditional tableware ceramics as well?

Jo Gideon: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that this is a great deal for Stoke-on-Trent and all the Potteries.
I am delighted that the first deal that the UK has struck as an independent trading nation is with our long-standing ally and friend Japan. From having previously done business in Japan, and from my personal connections, I know that the Japanese, just like the British, have a huge love and respect for quality brands, the highest standards and excellence in manufacturing. After all, it is the country that has introduced the concept of kaizen to the world, improving productivity across the globe. For household names in the UK, such as Emma Bridgewater, Portmeirion and Wade, all of which manufacture in Stoke-on-Trent Central, the deal presents a fantastic opportunity to sell more goods and achieve even more brand recognition.
The deal shows us that, now we have left the European Union, there is not a race to the bottom in standards, as some naysayers would claim—quite the opposite. The Government have placed, and will continue to place, our shared common values and commitment to high standards at the heart of the UK’s trading policy.
In conclusion, the deal is a great step forward for an independent and global Britain. It moves us ever closer to joining CPTPP, which will give businesses in my constituency and across the UK tariff-free access to some of the world’s fastest-growing economies. I am extremely enthusiastic about the deal, which is only the tip of the iceberg of what the Government can achieve for our country as we leave the constraints of the European Union and become a truly independent trading nation.

Eleanor Laing: We are almost at the end of the debate, but if he will take only three minutes before I call the Opposition spokesman, I will call Mr Brereton.

Jack Brereton: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon).
Like the UK, Japan is an island nation—a maritime trading nation. We have shared values: it is a strong voice for free trade and the rules-based international order, as many hon. Members have already said. It was hugely welcome that Japan was one of the first nations to announce that it would seek a mutually improved trading future with a post-Brexit UK. As our partnership deepens, I want more of that investment to come to Stoke-on-Trent, and for Japanese tourists and buyers to come to enjoy the authentic world capital of ceramics.
Like the Japanese, we are keen on tea and fine ceramics—or should I say porcelain?—so at the top, or high-value, end of the market for exceptional ceramics, it is no surprise to find a fusion of Japanese and Stoke-on-Trent expertise and artistry. The British-Japanese ceramicist Reiko Kaneko, whom I was delighted to visit in my constituency, has her studio locally. There is also Hitomi Hosono—sorry for my pronunciation—who trained in Japan, Copenhagen and London, but it was at Wedgwood in my constituency that she really made her mark. She is now its artist in residence, and one of the few who has actually exhibited while still alive at the British Museum and the Victoria & Albert Museum. This is what Stoke-on-Trent can offer to global Britain: local expertise and local passion at the very top of the world class.
However, it is not just about those artists; we are also keen to ensure that earthenware, ceramics, tiles and tableware are increasing their exports to Japan. The UK lags behind EU competitors such as France and Portugal, and we can do a lot better than that. We want to make sure that we are increasing our exports into the Japanese market, and this trade agreement will allow us to do that. It is also about ensuring that we secure not just market access, but greater market presence, and a specialist DIT adviser for ceramics based in Stoke-on-Trent could be just the way of achieving that. Ceramics manufacturers have certainly welcomed the partnership with Japan, which is their fourth largest export market. I hope we can agree that Stoke-on-Trent ceramics are an iconic good that we must continue to push locally.
I would like to thank the Secretary of State and the Ministers for all they have been doing to push ceramics. They never fail to mention ceramics in the many trade agreements we are seeking to secure. It fits very much as well with the recent work of VisitBritain, which shows that this is a place that the Japanese see as the world’s best destination for revisiting places of nostalgic importance. That is very much about the ceramics industry and the ceramics that we want to see very much pushed with further trade agreements.

Gareth Thomas: While I welcome this deal and the recent announcement of the Canada deal being rolled over, I am not sure it merits the “truly historic” or “groundbreaking” description that the Secretary of State would have us use to describe it.
The problem is that, out of the hearing of the Secretary of State and her cheerleaders today, there are very few experts who think this deal is quite as good as she does. The more generous suggest privately that it is a deal just a little bit worse than the EU agreement, while even the more considered suggest that we look at the impact assessment. On the upside, from that impact assessment  it is clear that trade is set to rise significantly between our two nations, and as a key strategic ally, that is welcome. However, this is a deal that, according to the Government’s own calculations in the impact assessment, will see 83% of the almost £16 billion increase in trade over the next 15 years between the UK and Japan going to Japanese exporters, while the share coming to UK exporters is just 15%. Clearly, the last thing we should do is adopt a mercantilist attitude, but a deal five times better for the other side’s exporters than for our own does, I think, merit a little pause for thought. Even Donald Trump might not have rushed to describe this as a “truly historic” triumph.
In May, the Secretary of State published alongside the Department for International Trade’s scoping objectives for a UK-Japan deal, an impact assessment showing the limited benefits of the deal she was hoping to achieve. As the impact assessment on the final deal reveals, she was not even able to reach the sunlit uplands of those limited heights. Not only will our negotiating partners apparently benefit by five times as much as our firms and employees, but the deal will apparently increase our GDP by just 0.07%, and that is in comparison with there not being a deal.
Strikingly, Ministers claim that the deal they have negotiated is better than the EU-Japan deal, but they provide zero evidence to back up that claim. Despite repeated requests, as again today, from the shadow Secretary of State in written parliamentary questions, letters and parliamentary debates, Ministers have refused to estimate what impact the deal has achieved above and beyond the EU-Japan deal. It has been 75 days since the shadow Secretary of State asked the Secretary of State why she could claim that her deal goes far beyond the existing EU deal. She again, in her opening remarks today, did not give us any figures to back up that assertion. One can only assume that the difference between the two deals is marginal at best.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) rightly drew attention to one of the other comments in the impact assessment. The Government’s estimates show that as a result of increased imports from Japan arising from the deal, there will be economic costs for the UK—indeed, a long-run fall in employment in chemical, machine and automotive production as a result of cheaper Japanese imports. There was again no word from the Secretary of State on how she plans to help the industries and communities in our country affected by those job losses.
Japan is a valuable export market for our agricultural goods. The tariff reductions agreed in the UK-Japan trade deal are almost identical to those set out in the EU-Japan deal. Important analysis by the independent UK Trade Policy Observatory found that there are just 11 out of 9,444 products where the tariffs on UK exports are set to be lower under the UK-Japan deal. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Secretary of State, pointed out, the extra concessions to the UK are striking by the lack of logic behind why Ministers sought them, as, for example, we have had no exports to Japan of any of these products, which include dried eggs and ostrich leather.
The Secretary of State has also claimed that another 70 of our food and drink products will be recognised by Japan under the geographical indication scheme, increasing  their value and protecting their brand. I say this gently, but it does appear that the Secretary of State is exaggerating just a little. There are only seven, not 70, GIs recognised in the UK-Japan deal—exactly the same as in the EU-Japan deal. All that has been agreed is that the UK can apply to Japan to have more of our products recognised, with at least two Government Ministries in Japan having to be involved and deciding whether or not to grant them. There is absolutely no guarantee of success.
One of the key questions about the deal was whether the UK would be able to roll over all the anticipated agriculture benefits of the EU-Japan deal into our UK-Japan deal. In some areas, this appears to have been relatively straightforward. Tariff reductions for exports for lamb and beef, for example, are exactly the same in the UK-Japan deal as apply under the EU deal, but there does appear to be one key difference, which was alluded to in the exchange between the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State. The European Union has 25 separate tariff-free quotas with Japan for agricultural goods. The UK has managed to secure partial access to just 10. Of those 10, it would appear that the UK gets only what is left after the rest of the European Union have had their fill. I will read with interest the legal letter that the Secretary of State is going to release after this debate, but one has to ask why such a letter was required and why this was not clarified in the text itself.
A series of Members have highlighted the need for better scrutiny arrangements for trade deals going forward, from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith)—the SNP spokesperson—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and, most welcome of all, the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins).
Of course, I should emphasise again the shadow Secretary of State’s great thanks to the Secretary of State for being so kind in allowing the House the opportunity to have this debate at all. Under the so-called CRaG process for considering trade deals, there is absolutely no legal requirement for this type of debate to take place. It is entirely in the Government’s gift. If the Trade Bill was amended in the other place to demand the same level of scrutiny as we are applying to the Japan deal today, how could any Member of Parliament reject such a reasonable proposition, given that at the moment we rely entirely on the generosity of the Government as to whether or not to grant a debate?
Despite the rather complacent air of the Secretary of State’s speech, I hope that the Government will not be resting on their laurels. Even after the loss of Algeria, Bosnia and Serbia, there are still 11 continuity agreements waiting to be agreed, covering some £55 billion of our trade last year. There are serious questions, too, about the UK’s future membership of the CPTPP. It is not a done deal; it will warrant serious debate in this House.
There are serious questions that the Minister of State could answer now. When will there be an impact assessment setting out what Ministers expect to be the benefits? Will we simply have to accept the provisions already in the CPTPP? Will we be a rule taker, or will we be able to  be a rule maker? What will be the benefits of CPTPP for UK exports, jobs and economic growth, and what might be the downsides? What we know is that the Secretary of State has negotiated a deal with Japan that appears to put British farmers and agricultural exporters at the back of the European queue for tariff-free quota access and that, by her own Department’s analysis, benefits Japanese exporters five times as much as it does British exporters.

Greg Hands: This has been an excellent debate, with speeches from 13 Government Back Benchers and six Opposition Members. It is an historic moment, as the Secretary of State outlined. The UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement is an historic milestone in embracing the opportunities of the UK’s future as an independent trading nation. It shows that economic powerhouses such as Japan—the world’s third largest economy—want ambitious deals with the UK and that it is possible to strike deals that go further and faster than the EU. It not only secures the benefits of the existing EU agreements, which many—and particularly the Opposition—said was impossible, but goes further in a number of key areas such as digital and data, financial services, the protection of geographical indicators and rules of origin. It was negotiated in record time, almost entirely virtually.

Richard Graham: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Greg Hands: I give way to hon. Friend, who was not able to get into the debate.

Richard Graham: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that this important free trade agreement is the first of several key UK-Asia goals over the next year, including accession to the trans-Pacific partnership, dialogue partner status with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, several bilateral market access initiatives and partnership of the climate change summit in Glasgow? Altogether, this will bring alive the determined strategy of global Britain.

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend is quite right. He is our trade envoy to the ASEAN region and to a couple of countries there. I was addressing our DIT internal teams in the Asia-Pacific region just this week on the incredible opportunities that this country has there.
The deal was negotiated almost entirely virtually.  It deepens the economic partnership between two  like-minded island democracies. It reflects our shared values and our shared belief in the fundamental principles of free and fair trade and the importance of playing  by the rules. That point was made on both sides of  the House, including by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). This British-shaped deal strengthens ties between the  world’s third largest and fifth largest economies and will help to drive economic growth in the long run. The Government are committed to levelling up the UK, delivering opportunity and unleashing the potential of every part of our United Kingdom.
We heard in this debate from two former Trade Ministers: my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), with his excellent and deep understanding of world trade, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on the importance of the International Trade Committee in scrutinising this agreement. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who again showed that we have proved the naysayers wrong, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) about thriving Wales-Japan trade, particularly in the area of lamb.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey, a former Foreign Secretary, described this as a personal triumph for the Trade Secretary; I entirely agree. I can attest at first hand to how much personal effort she has put into getting the team to move forward, including in the early hours of the day. That has been incredibly helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, welcomed the fact that the Trade and Agriculture Commission was to be put on a statutory basis. He also pointed out that Japan is the world’s largest importer of agrifood.

Neil Parish: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Greg Hands: I am afraid I have too many hon. Members to respond to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) has a keen interest, of course, in all matters relating to data. I can tell him that I shall be meeting the Information Commissioner’s Office in the next few weeks. I say to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) that he was correct when he made the point that the UK-Japan deal would not change the current position in relation to onward transfer of UK personal data from Japan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made some very important points. He made an important point on services—that it is very important that there is mutual recognition of professional qualifications in deals as we go forward. In recent weeks I have met the architects, the Law Society, the Bar Council and so on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) said that Japan’s role as chair of the CPTPP this year was really important for our agenda in 2021. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) said that the deal opened up new opportunities for farmers in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) praised the DIT’s outreach to MPs. That has been a priority of the Secretary of State, me and the entire team.
Then we had the entire Conservative team from Stoke, lined up geographically in order, South, Central and North—the sort of line-up that Alan Hudson would have been proud of in the 1970s, in his Stoke City pomp—making the point again and again how important trade is going to be for the future of that great city. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) of her business and personal connections with Japan, and her commitment to quality. It has been a great effort. I know how supportive the whole Stoke team has been of the DIT’s efforts.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said that the SNP is “pro-trade.” He may not know, but the SNP of course abstained on the original EU-Canada deal. But he is almost unique. There are only two Members in this House who have actually voted against the original EU-Canada deal, and he is one of them, from his time as an MEP. So with all of his praise for that original deal, he is one of only two Members in this Parliament who has actually voted against it. He has fallen into the trap that the SNP fell into last week of praising EU agreements that they actually voted against in the first place.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) spoke about the importance of COP 26 and climate, and slightly ridiculed the idea of our joining the CPTPP. He claimed that Britain owned the Pitcairn Islands. Well, it is not the Pitcairn Islands but the 11 members of the CPTPP that have welcomed the UK’s interest in applying to join—countries such as Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and so on.
The right hon. Member for Warley raised an important point about the unity of liberal democracy, which I have mentioned.
I assure the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) that no harm will be done to the NHS or NHS data by this agreement, but it does help tech firms and data firms setting up operations in Japan that they do not have to follow local data localisation rules. That is incredibly important for our tech sector.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) spoke about parliamentary scrutiny. He said that Which? had not been involved. I was the guest speaker at Which?’s national trade conversation just last week. He does serve on the Select Committee, but he is not always fully up-to-date with his information.
I have already answered the point that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised about data transfer.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) summed up for the official Opposition. He is like the SNP: he never actually supported any of these trade deals in the first place. He did not support EU-Japan. He voted against EU-Canada. He voted against EU- Singapore. So for him to come along today and say that the new UK rolled-over version is somehow inferior to the trade deal that he might have supported in the past—well, a quick check of Hansard revealed that he never supported any of those deals; in fact he actively opposed most of them.
It has often been said that an independent UK would not be able to strike major trade deals, or that at the very least such deals would be bad and take years to conclude. But even in the midst of this terrible pandemic we have proven the naysayers wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes also nobly said. We have secured provisions as good as the EU’s on all our objectives and gone beyond them in some key areas, securing vital priorities for the UK.
This deal benefits all parts of our country while protecting our red lines on areas such as the NHS and food standards. It is a sign and a signal that we are back as an independent trading nation, as a major force of global trade, and as a country that stands up for free enterprise and liberal values across the world. Using  our newfound independence as an optimistic, outward-looking trading nation, once again we are embracing the golden opportunities ahead for global trade, visibly shown in this UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Immigration)

That the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Business and Planning Act 2020 (London Spatial Development Strategy) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 2 November, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Support for post offices

Alan Brown: I rise to present a petition from the residents of Kilmarnock and Loudoun regarding the sub-postmasters who keep our post offices open. We all know that post offices are often the lifeblood of communities, even more so with the closure of banks in so many communities across the UK.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Kilmarnock and Loudoun,
Declares that sub postmasters and their staff carry out valuable work daily to support their local communities; further declares that they provide financial services that ensure the physical and psychological wellbeing of vulnerable people; and further declares that all sub postmasters should be commended for their efforts and their role should be preserved by a UK Government commitment to the Post Office network.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure the extension of the Post Office subsidy beyond 2021; and make a formal statement on the integral role that sub postmasters play in supporting their communities.
And the petitioners remain, etc
[P002630]

Mental Health Support: Policing

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.)

Greg Smith: Policing and supporting our police officers are both enormously important to me. I have worked with police officers throughout my political career, especially during my 12 years in local government, and every single police officer who serves has my absolute and total respect and thanks for all that they do to keep us safe, often putting themselves in dangerous situations to do so.
I also speak as someone who grew up with policing. My father served for 31 years. As I reflected on the subject of tonight’s debate, it struck me how policing changed so much throughout his career and continues to do so to this day. When he joined the Birmingham City police in 1970, he was issued with the usual tunic and a truncheon and sent out on patrol. By the time he retired from the Metropolitan police in 2001, stab vests had already become the norm and ASPs had replaced truncheons. As I joined officers in Aylesbury Vale a few Fridays ago to see first hand their day-to-day operations, it struck me how it had become necessary for so many to carry a taser.
The inspiration for this Adjournment debate came from my constituent Sam Smith—for the record, he is not a relative—who came to my surgery with a number of very well researched points about mental health support in policing, which I shall put to the House and my hon. Friend the Minister in the hope that they will be addressed.
To set the scene, my constituent is an ex-police officer who served for three years on the frontline. Unfortunately he had to leave service a year ago because of struggles with his mental health caused by the trauma experienced in policing. He reports that throughout his short policing career very little support was offered for his mental health and he points to a strong stigma around mental wellbeing in general. It came as a surprise to him when he found out from a survey of nearly 17,000 serving officers and operational staff last autumn—conducted by the University of Cambridge and funded by the charity Police Care UK, and entitled “The Job & The Life”—that 90% of police workers had been exposed to trauma, and almost one in five suffers with a form of post-traumatic stress disorder or complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Those who work in law enforcement are almost five times more likely to develop PTSD than the general UK population.
To give a flavour of what our police officers face on a daily basis, the British Transport police were in touch with me this week. The nature of BTP’s work means that their officers regularly deal with the most traumatic of incidents. For example, tragically about 300 people take their own lives on the railway each year and British Transport police officers attend and manage all of those incidents. Some 40% of BTP staff are impacted by one of these incidents every year and over 1,000 staff are impacted by two or more.
Going back to the survey, among the 80% without clinical levels of post-traumatic stress disorder, half reported overall fatigue, anxiety and trouble sleeping. It is concerning that this information is not regularly  provided to officers during their initial training, so that they can be aware of the dangers of the job for their mental health. If someone tried to join the police while suffering from PTSD it is unlikely they would be considered medically fit, so it is worrying that we are allowing so many officers to struggle with their mental health and go through trauma while being responsible for the safety of members of the public. Another sad statistic from the Office for National Statistics data is that approximately one officer every two weeks is taking their own life. The true number and risk is hard to quantify, as not all police forces in the UK are separately recording this data.
After experiencing the inadequate support currently available for officer mental health, my constituent decided to start a campaign for change. Through his experiences he felt that there was a lack of prevention and support for resilience to help avoid mental health issues and he believes that his force at the time concentrated on aftercare, which he informs me is poorly advertised and rarely used. Officers’ experiences are unique to the force they are serving in, so the level of care that officers receive comes down to individual forces. That position is backed up by Gill Scott-Moore, the chief executive of Police Care UK, who said:
“There is no comprehensive strategy to tackle the issue of mental health in policing, and that has to change.”
Indeed, there is no Government mandate or minimum standard for forces’ management of trauma exposure or mental health, and no requirement for anything to improve. This has led to a mix of positive and negative experiences for officers struggling with mental health.

Wendy Chamberlain: I apologise for missing the start of this very important debate. As a former police officer myself, I am aware of this issue and the additional burden that police officers face in supporting people who also have their own mental health challenges. One constituent contacted me to say that they had tried to take their own life but had been stopped by police officers. The officers said that they wished they could do more, but that they were not trained in mental health. Indeed, today Deputy Chief Constable Will Kerr, at a Scottish Police Authority board meeting, said that the
“level of demand has outstripped capacity”
and Police Scotland’s
“professional ability to deal with”
those with mental health issues. The hon. Gentleman is talking so compassionately about the experience of police officers. Does he agree that we need to make sure that police officers have mental health support to give to other people?

Greg Smith: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree with her, particularly on her point about training. I will come on to that later on in my speech.
My constituent found in his research that, although it is a near costless process, not all forces are recording tragic police suicides separately, so they cannot feed in to the work we must do to prevent those suicides taking place. The research by the charity Police Care UK and the University of Cambridge into police trauma and  mental health made headline news in May last year. The research highlights areas in which police officers are not given adequate opportunity to look after their own mental health or that of others. For example, 93% of officers who reported a psychological issue as a result of work said that they would still go to work as usual, and 73% of those with possible or probable PTSD have not been diagnosed and may not even know that they have it. This represents a huge human cost to police officers’ wellbeing, and the implications for performance and public safety do not bear thinking about. With figures like these, I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that change is required.
For a long time now, mental health has come second to physical health. The statistics show that mental illness is as dangerous to a police officer’s health as physical injury, and we therefore need to give mental health the same attention that physical health has received for so many years. The College of Policing is working on creating a national curriculum for police safety training. This is the training that focuses on the physical side of policing. Police safety training was reviewed after the tragic death of PC Harper last year, and it was unanimously agreed by all chief constables that the training should be consistent across forces, as there were major discrepancies in the quality of training across the board. I put it to the House that mental health and trauma resilience should feature as a key component to that officer safety training.
By creating a new, pragmatic, national approach, the Home Office could guarantee that every force would meet the agreed and expected standard to best protect our officers. Initiatives such as the national wellbeing service are very welcome. However, Police Care UK’s research with the University of Cambridge illustrates that there is an over-reliance on generic NHS services. As long as police officers and staff are on NHS waiting lists, the existing national approach can hope to have only limited success. Challenges such as these have already been recognised by the NHS, which has set up its own specialist service to support the mental health of its doctors through practitioner health programmes. There needs to be an equivalent for our police.
My constituent’s campaign therefore proposes that the same is needed for mental health in the police force, and that a 360° approach to mental health needs to be adopted. This would include prevention through education, maintained resiliency and aftercare, so that no matter what stage someone was at in their policing career, they would be better protected from the overwhelmingly high chances of being a victim. In particular, mental health prevention and education on officers’ personal welfare are widely missed, and training currently focuses only on dealing with mental health in the community. The fully encompassing approach should also increase awareness of the existing aftercare support that is currently being underused.
This consistent and fair approach would also help to break the long-standing stigma around mental health in policing. The benefits of this would go far beyond protecting those who serve; it would mean that police officers were able to carry out their duty more safely and be at less risk from finding themselves in situations where they were being investigated, for example, for misconduct. It would reduce long-term sickness and better retain experienced police officers who would otherwise have their careers cut short. While this is not  about money, the long-term financial savings would outweigh the short-term spending required to implement the new approach.
The fear is that, without Government intervention and guidance, the 43 individual forces will continue to go off in different directions, and someone’s mental wellbeing should not be put down to the luck of which police force they are located in. We are showing a lack of equality not only in the way we view mental health but across the wider policing family. The police covenant offers the perfect opportunity for my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to these concerns and to instigate simple, specific and vital changes to managing police mental health across the UK, such as monitoring PTSD prevalence and suicide rates. Providing the police with a full support network for both physical and mental health is the very least we can do.
It is clear that no force would send an officer to a stabbing without a stab-proof vest, so why do we as a country continue to send them into repeated trauma without the knowledge of how to safely manage their own mental health? Unlike physical health, mental health is too often invisible, but it is there and we cannot ignore it. Mental illness affects not just the person suffering; it can destroy entire families and cause great heartache for years to come. The question for my hon. Friend is this: will she support and help implement a change nationally to provide equal standards of mental health welfare, training, support and access to therapy for every officer that serves for Queen and country no matter what force they are in?
Crucially, any initiatives introduced need to make provision for addressing the backlog of cases that need support. Police Care UK has seen a fivefold increase in demand for therapy over the past 12 months alone. Will my hon. Friend the Minister back this campaign? Will she make it mandatory that all police forces in the United Kingdom show consistency and record those PTSD prevalence rates and those sad tragic suicides? As Dr Jessica Miller of the University of Cambridge says:
“A stiff upper lip attitude will not work in contemporary policing. Without decent interventions and monitoring for trauma impact and a national conversation involving the Home Office and the Department of Health, the alarming levels of PTSD our study has uncovered will stay the same.”
Every single day, police officers across the country face risks—dangerous risks—defending our communities. I was proud to stand on a manifesto that committed to backing our police by equipping officers with the powers and tools that they need to protect us, including Tasers and body cameras. It is now time that we increased steps to look after their mental health, too.

Victoria Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on securing this debate on this important subject, but may I go further than that and thank him for bringing his experiences as the proud son of a police officer into the Chamber and indeed thank his father for his 31 years of public service? Those experiences and that service will help, I am sure, to influence and inform the debates that we will have in the future on the vital topic of police   safety and wellbeing, particularly with the police covenant galloping towards us, more of which I will speak about in a moment.
I also thank my hon. Friend’s constituent, Sam Smith, who has had the courage to be frank about his personal circumstances and has used those experiences to inform a body of work that he has been able to take to my hon. Friend, and I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for taking this opportunity to put them before the House.
Our brave police officers do an extraordinary job in the most difficult circumstances, keeping us safe day in, day out. The job of a police officer can be very, very tough. Many of them face more danger in a single day than we may see in months, years or indeed a lifetime. We have only to look at the tragic deaths of Thames Valley officer PC Andrew Harper, and Sergeant Matt Ratana of the Met, as examples of where officers have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their extraordinary bravery will not be forgotten.
Our police continue to serve our country courageously. Their commitment to protecting and supporting their communities has shone through in the role that they have played in the response to the pandemic. Across the policing family, those who go to work to keep the country safe are truly the best of us. It is therefore absolutely right that we ensure that they are supported every step of the way.
Of course the work of the police involves dealing with traumatic incidents and helping some of the most vulnerable people in our society. This is not a job that they can leave at the office. Indeed, I would not call it a job; I would call it a vocation. The pressures of the role can leave their mark on a person’s personal and family life as well. As I say, I very much bear in mind the family experiences of a serving officer as well. I know from my portfolio about the effect of working on, for example, a case involving the sexual exploitation and abuse of children; or the impact on an officer arriving at the scene of a domestic homicide; or even, as we have seen in recent weeks, the impact on an officer arriving at a terrorist incident and having to run towards that danger, not knowing what they may face. Those are extraordinary experiences, which leave terrible marks on police officers who have to deal with them.
It is absolutely right that we ensure that the mental health and wellbeing of our police is a priority, which is why this Government have invested £7.5 million in a new national police wellbeing service. The service is available to every officer in England and Wales; policing is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so they are responsible for their arrangements. The service was built up following two years of development and piloting, and was launched in April 2019. It provides evidence-based guidance, advice, tools and resources that can be accessed by forces, and individual officers and staff. There is an emphasis on prevention and on identifying mental health issues early so that officers and staff can get help before a problem takes hold.
The service offers a wide range of support and guidance, including an outreach service of bespoke wellbeing vans that are being deployed to police stations, providing physical, psychological and financial health checks for officers and staff. It also includes psychological risk management to clarify potential problems and identify suitable interventions such as counselling, further referral, or, in some cases, signposting to information, advice  or training. There is also trauma and post-incident management to help officers and staff who have dealt with traumatic incidents, considering how individual officers and people may respond differently.

Wendy Chamberlain: As a police officer, I remember paying my monthly subs to the national police treatment centre in Auchterarder and the one in Harrogate as well. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on the work of those centres, and how they complement the covenant that she is describing.

Victoria Atkins: I am about to come to the covenant, but I am just setting out the wellbeing service. It has been created very much with the police to ensure that we address the issues that they face, but we do not for a moment pretend that we have completed the job. We are conscious that this is a journey of progress and we want to do more. In summary, the service is designed to ensure that support is available for police before, during and after a traumatic incident, but we want to go even further to ensure that our police get the support and protection they need. A crucial strand of that is the police covenant, which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has mentioned. We are working at pace to introduce the covenant in legislation, and are committed to ensuring that it has a meaningful impact on those working within or retired from policing roles, whether paid or as a volunteer.
The covenant marks an important moment for the country to recognise the policing family’s huge contribution to our society. We expect to establish a robust governance structure in the coming months to drive progress, and policing partners have already been involved in these discussions. The covenant will be enshrined in law, and the Home Secretary will have a duty to report annually on progress. This legislation will be introduced in Parliament later this Session. Our focus will be on health and wellbeing, physical protection and support for families, and we are in no doubt that we must focus on mental health support, building on the work already done by the national police wellbeing service.
To support that, we must all ensure that occupational health standards are embedded consistently within forces, which is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has made. The national police wellbeing service has been working hard to drive that, but we have to make sure that forces have the right people, who  make the right investments and ensure the highest quality standards in this area, and we intend for that to be a key priority under the remit of the police covenant. All of that work provides a great opportunity for us to make a difference to the lives of those working in policing and their families, and we will continue to work closely with policing partners to ensure that the change makes a real difference to police officers and families.
As I have said, our police make enormous sacrifices to protect us in hugely challenging circumstances, and they deserve our respect and our support, so it is utterly shameful to see that some individuals think it is acceptable to attack them. That can not only cause physical injuries, but serious psychological impacts. We have been completely clear that we will not stand for the police enduring violence and abuse while doing their critical work.
We are pleased to see that the review into officer and staff safety conducted by the National Police Chiefs’ Council has included as one of its recommendations that chief constables should implement the seven-point plan developed by Hampshire constabulary. It sets out what officers and staff should expect from their force if they have been a victim of an assault. It is vital that, should these awful incidents happen, police officers and staff are provided with the right care to help prevent a lasting impact on their health and wellbeing. We are also clear that those convicted of such assaults should face the full force of law, which is why we have announced our intention to legislate to double the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months to two years. We will continue to work with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that assaults on police officers and firefighters are handled with appropriate severity across the criminal justice system.
In conclusion, our police are among the most selfless and courageous members of our society. They run towards danger to protect the public. They put their lives on the line every day. They perform their duties with skill and professionalism, all in the name of keeping our communities safe. In recognition of all that they do, it is our responsibility to make sure they get every possible support, and I hope I have been able to demonstrate to my hon. Friend and to colleagues across the House how seriously the Government take our responsibility to support our police, and the steps that we intend to take to do even more.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Exiting the European Union (Constitutional Law)

That the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 261.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Below is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney  North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend  West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Stuart Anderson  (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and  Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South  Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron  Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East  Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston)  (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Paula Barker (Liverpool,  Wavertree) (Lab)
  Kim Johnson


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and  Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and  Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen  North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield  Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge,  Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Bowie (West  Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West ) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
  William Wragg


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South  Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth  West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central)  (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West  Derby) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham,  Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of  Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East  Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East  Londonderry) (DUP)
  Gavin Robinson


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke  (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith  (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk  Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South  Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde)  (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and  Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and  Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford  South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton  North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and  Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Evans


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and  East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi  (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid  Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and  Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham,  Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and  Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton  North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood  (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Jonathan Edwards


  Katherine Fletcher (South  Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of  Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East  Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent  Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill  (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and  Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and  Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond  (Wimbledon) ( Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and  Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman  (Camberwell and Peckham)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson  (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston)  (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge  (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson  (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid  Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and  Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North  West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Fay Jones (Brecon and  Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil  and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Jones (Newport West)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and  Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester,  Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid  Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrea Leadsom (South  Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh  (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great  Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest  East) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger  (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey Donaldson


  Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
  Robbie Moore


  Mark Logan (Bolton North  East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton,  Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy McDonald  (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stuart C. McDonald  (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and  Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John McDonnell (Hayes and  Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden  (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens  North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood  (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kit Malthouse (North West  Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and  Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South  Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock  Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport)  (Lab)
  Kim Johnson


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton  Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow  North West)
  Patrick Grady


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge- Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Tom Hunt


  Holly Mumby-Croft  (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East  Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Owen (Luton North)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Paisley (North Antrim)  (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North  Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel  Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham,  Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester  Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and  Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson  (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
  Stuart Andrew


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor  Meirionnydd)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jim Shannon (Strangford)  (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman  (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and  Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip,  Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and  Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby  North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother  Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness,  Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow  Central) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North  Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North  Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan  (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon  Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Tom Hunt


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and  Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and  Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North  Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams  (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson  (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mike Wood (Dudley South)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew